Resignation fromCommittee

[Mike T]

Isn't this part of the policy specifically about public liability insurance?

Doesn't this section of the policy cover the situation where a member of the public may suffer accidental injury or loss eg if knocked over by a runner, and maybe if the RO can show that he has taken proportionate and reasonable safety measures to safeguard third parties, then the RO will not be negligent?

I don't think the extract means that the insurance policy as a whole is void due to the hazards involved in fell running.

I don't know though, I am just guessing.

I think the "public" are those who are neither the insurance company nor those paying for the insurance.

[wynn]

I think the "public" are those who are neither the insurance company nor those paying for the insurance.

When an accident occurs where blame can be attributed to a business (RO/Race), there is an insurance policy that can be taken out called public liability insurance.
So if the PLI is invalid due to conflict of interest ( hazard/non hazard) ... the RO has no insurance cover if anything goes wrong so will have to deal with it him/her self and it will be expensive!!!!

[Witton Park]

I have to say a big thanks to Andy for the work he has put in.

I have sit on a few committees and it's common practise for the Chair to try and draw much needed expertise in and embrace them - can't quite fathom out what's gone on here as people like Andy are hard to come by.

I also have to say that I'm disappointed in teh committee as a whole for allowing it to get to this point. I am aware that several have voiced "behind the scenes" concerns to try and keep a lid on things. Well this is where it has got you.

[nippersmith]

I think the "public" are those who are neither the insurance company nor those paying for the insurance.

Yes that sounds right. Public liability insurance covers a wide range and different classes of liability.

The inconsistency is worrying, I agree.

I can see why ROs need reassurance.