IMASA
- psurestart
- Jun 3
- 1 min read
When possible, drop IMASA a Like on Facebook.
top of page
Statement from another Martial Art website – General Information response shaded in Yellow
Non-named Web Martial Art Association Statement;
Probably the hardest area of sports insurance for people to get their heads around and the main issue to understand is that the need for this type of insurance differs between a student and an instructor. The liability cover provided for a student, alongside their PA cover, is for what we can call general liability, in other words, cover for the general Duty of Care, that one person owes to another which if breached can open a person up to a claim for damages - loss or injury.
Response;
(Generally called Student Indemnity)
Member to Member Indemnity covers the Member from injuring a training partner upto the upper
Association Policy limit of £5/£10 Million. this Indemnity is provided from the Association Policy and is not
an individual Policy - There is no accidental cover provided within these types of Indemnity Policies
Member to Member Liability
The Insurer will indemnify member or members of the Association
in their respective capacities as such as though each party was
individually named as the Insured in the Association Policy.
Association Student Indemnity covers the student from being sued upto the Association Indemnity limit; students do not claim against their own Indemnity, they claim against the
student that has caused the injury, that does not prevent them from also claiming against the Club.
In UK common law, there is a principle that basically states that when it comes to engaging in activities that hold risk and the potential for injury, then a person takes on that risk and cannot then sue for damages if they are subsequently injured. This, in Latin, is the principle of "Volenti Non Fit Injuria” and means that where two people are engaging in a risky activity, where the potential for injury is accepted, then should an injury occur the injured party cannot sue the other player.
Response;
This statement is both True & False, “Volenti non fit injuria” is a defence against an injury claim, but not a complete Defence, a Judge will make a decision of the facts, when this defence is litigated (not straight forward as you state) – UK Law states, a plaintiff can only have their rights withdrawn by the Courts – A Declaration Form, must be proved that a person Freely agrees to it; (No coercion used or implied).
In any event, Strict proof of a Volenta Defence is required to be placed before a Judge, by the Defendant’s Legal Team, there are cases that this defence has been used and Struck Out by a Court Judge, at first sitting and further on at an Appeal hearing, and if proven, the Judge can apply a percentage of blame/cost to either party.
This is why in the UK there is NO 'member to member' (as this situation is typically, but incorrectly known) cover available which, more properly should be known as 'participant to participant.' An example may help because there is in fact member to member cover available; for example, where two martial artists turn up to train and one puts his bag on the floor at the top of the stairs, which trips someone up, sending them headlong down the stairs, then this is covered under the member to member section of the policy.
Response;
False, just a play on words: Member to Member, Player to Player, are words used by the Martial Arts Industry, it is actually Member Indemnity as used by the Insurance Industry, although some do call it Member to Member to make it more easily explained.
A Claimant could claim against a Member (in your example) “puts his bag on the floor at the top of the stairs, which trips someone up, sending them headlong down the stairs, in reality a Claim could/would be made against the Club and or the Chief Instructor under either Health & Safety rules and or Duty of Care.
HOWEVER - should those same two students be training together on the mat and one injures the other there is no 'participant to participant' cover in place for the very simple reason that under Volenti the injured student cannot sue, therfore no cover can actually be provided. The principle of Volenti accepts that the situation changes if one person grossly steps outside the accepted bounds of the rules of the sport which would, in fact, pretty much move the action to be a criminal assault.
Response:
This statement “if one person grossly steps outside the accepted bounds of the rules of the sport which would, in fact, pretty much move the action to be a criminal assault”, this is only one of the reasons your “Volenti non fit injuria” Defence would fail, Misleading of the actual facts, either injury/damages claim or criminal assault can be pursued in UK Law.
In any event, the Legal Costs of the Pleading, “Volenti non fit injuria” by Solicitors/Barristers, could cost anywhere between £2,000 to £10,000 (dependent on the amount of the claim) and higher if procedures end up in the Supreme Court, this is the reason Member Indemnity is advisable, (Liability Protection) as it goes; where there’s blame, there’s a claim (No Win-No Fee)
I would advise your web statement could if plead, breach the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
bottom of page
Comments