Insurance

General discussion
DaveWalsh
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by DaveWalsh » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:16 pm

What a fantastic effort by the committee to get to grips with such a slippery elusive subject. I am thoroughly impressed, as, so it appears, are others, judging from the adult and even mature responses from contributors to date. Useful but dull and boring – there’d be more crack at the average funeral. Still, I suppose some people (names withheld) did enjoy themselves last year, a lot, maybe even too much, so a little actual discussion this year might be appropriate?

When I saw the new initiative, I for one immediately went looking for cover, insurance cover. I tried the independent site, but got nowhere on-line. There is a phone number and I would have tried that when I get the chance, only that when I contacted ICU it was so easy to join and get immediate cover from them I took it. And it cost €20.00 not €30.00.

Neither the cost nor having liability type cover for myself was ever the issue for me. The prices quoted last year by Alan were very reasonable and so it has turned out. ICU (Vicky) told me I was immediately covered as a foot soldier and would be immediately covered as a leader if and for so long as I obey the terms and conditions that apply, because I am a level 5 with a level 4 instructorship bolted on. She tells me that all I need (I haven’t the patience for reading the fine print) is to get my first aid back up to “current”, child protection clearance from the Gardaí “current”, not go out in foul weather (no argument there), and obey the ratio rules (she told me what they are but I forget, I never did much bother with them anyway).

Which leaves me as a common or garden paddler unable to lead anyone anywhere if insurance considerations are driving things.

I have no problem obtaining whatever insurance is reasonably available, and I doubt that whatever ICU have is likely to be bettered, be it adequate or not. I think everyone should have insurance the same way I think everyone should have a tow rope, though I admit I feel stronger about the tow rope. First aid too, not necessarily current etc (the thought of donating a weekend of my life to all that is just too depressing). People have a moral duty not unnecessarily to be a burden to others, by which I mean issues with one way traffic – you look after me but I’ll not cover you.

I do have a problem dictating to others that they must (i.e. not should) have insurance. What worries me is that insurance for leadership seems unavailable without the proper qualifications. I have the qualifications (or could have with what some will regard as minimal effort) but I am very conscious that a lot of very good paddlers just plain don’t want to get into the system. My partner for 25 years never had a hint of qualifications. I have always detected very negative waves about the whole business of qualifications from him and from many others. With Fred Cooney I came into kayaking from climbing in about 1990 and there was a very negative qualifications orientated environment among that lot at that time. I personally got converted, primarily by Humphrey Murphey and Stephen Hannon, but Fred didn’t. And I always respected that. I respect that.

What we have here is a square peg and a round hole. There are many available leaders who have the ability and skill sets and the qualifications and want to lead and want to be insured for their leading and have gotten used to being so insured (“the qualifieds”). As against that there are many available leaders who have the ability and skill sets but not the qualifications and they too want to lead and know they can’t be insured for their leading and it hasn’t ever and doesn’t bother them (“the unqualifieds”). Both cohorts have coexisted peaceably for a quarter of a century without issue, but now a problem has arisen. Circumstances are now changed. Something new somewhere in the requirements of the insurance underwriters or within ICU or within ISKA (it really doesn’t matter which) requires an “all duck or no dinner” insurance policy, where either everyone is insured all the time for paddling or leading, or noone is covered at any time*****. Therefore either the qualifieds agree to paddle and lead uninsured or the unqualifieds agree to paddle but to give up leading. Neither cohort is going to be happy.

The problem needs to be resolved by consensus. That doesn’t seem possible, and the nearest alternative is my favourite, “democracy”. The matter is being put to a vote of the membership, which is how democracy operates on a day to day basis. The worst possible outcome of the vote would or at least might be a 51%/49% split, because democracy is “litmus tested” by the willingness of the minority to accept the wishes of the majority. 51% is a win in a boardroom, but a win isn’t or shouldn’t be what anyone is after in a voluntary organisation. Keeping the organisation together after a turbulent headcount might be a serious challenge. An earlier contributor has already identified this as the primary issue.

If I understand things right, after this vote, one or other cohort will end up either unable (the unqualifieds) or unwilling (the qualifieds) to lead trips on ISKA meets, and will have to stand back and leave the other lot to do it all. Whether the disappointed cohort swallow their disappointment and get on with things, or walk away, that is the question. Not only the leaders personally on either side of the debate, but some of their supporters too seem quite passionate about the principle of it all. I said earlier last year that I hate democracy, but had I known the debate would go on so long and dig in so deep, I’d have clarified, I hate the trappings of democracy when they get confused with and passed off as democracy.

Getting away from the broad principles of the problem, there are some specific quibbles / questions :
  • # Has the coexistence of liability insurance and a Waiver of liability been thoroughly looked at? It is possible to fall through the cracks with such potentially conflicting ways of addressing things. It is possible to generate a situation where the Waiver prevents liability arising so no need for the insurance. Tricky territory ……………..
    # Peer paddling isn’t covered it seems but it probably isn’t available.
    # When I had a little look into all this last year I concluded that one absolutely majorly important issue was “tasters” where potential newcomers come along and paddle with the group and if they fit in they join up. Not join up and come along and paddle and keep their fingers crossed. I found there was a tension between tasters and having qualified leaders. Without qualified leaders, tasters are less available. It’s a trade off. Tasters seems to have been parked by the Committee, presumably with good reason. I imagine this is part of the nitty gritty bargained over just before the handshake. Three tasters per newcomer is apparently about as much as is ever allowed. Three is fairly “policing” free. Anything less is an administrative headache.
    # Directors’ insurance is a good idea independent of all this, and not really related, if I understand things right?
DWalsh

***** Quite common. Its a cheaper business model. Club members can't cherry pick who is and isn't insured.

Mary Butler
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:06 pm

Re: Insurance

Post by Mary Butler » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:08 am

Step into the boots of an ISKA Committee member or the booties of an instructor/leader on an ISKA meet....

An ISKA organised meet was posted on the Bulletin Board. You volunteered to lead on the weekend and your name is posted as the leader for the meet. You have a nice days paddle before landing on the island. A few people slip on the seaweed covered rocks while collecting their camping gear from their kayaks.One paddler falls and has broken his wrist. You radio for assistance and the paddler is airlifted to get medical care and recovers well. Overall, the weekend is deemed a great success.

Two months later, the injured paddlers legal person pursues the committee or you, the leader, for the costs incurred for medical expenses, physio and loss of income during recovery.
- Now....wearing those boots... are YOU in happy to be in this scenario??

You are deemed not responsible but do you want to have lived through this, anxiously awaiting the ruling?
or
The court rules that the area was unsafe for landing and you, the committee member and/or you, the leader must pay the compensation.
- Do YOU want to be in either boots now?

But sure the case will be dropped: It was a group of like minded people out for a days paddle. Who knows what will happen in the court room. No one knows, not even those in the legal profession, as it has never been tested. Wearing either pair of boots... do YOU want to be the subject of a test case?


I have been on both sides of this debate. In the past, numbers were smaller and everyone knew everyone. ISKA is a "victim" of it's own success. Larger numbers are turning up at the organised meets. More and more, leaders/instructors do not know many of the participants in the group and more importantly, they do not know what capabilities many group members have.

I once believed we did not need insurance but I am now very much pro insurance (I have worn both sets of boots and worn them together for much of that time!!!) Not only that, but I am very much in favour of Canoeing Ireland Insurance as, presently, it is a very good policy. For example, for a committee member or an instructors view point this is invaluable...
Public Liability Insurance. Canoeing Ireland provides Public Liability Insurance (also referred to as Third Party Liability Insurance) for individuals registered with Canoeing Ireland against liability to pay compensation for injury or damage caused to a third party as a result of legal negligence
Yes... there has to be "Best Practice" to validate this cover but what is so wrong with that. We already have experienced people paddling and leading at meets. All that is required is for more to be certified** to improve our ratios and hence rubber-stamp our meets and validate any insurance.

ISKA has long supported the notion of qualifications among its members and it is now time for people to step up to the mark. Funding is available.
What's so bad about getting recognition of your leadership skills?? Having insurance or qualified leaders will not take from the easy going way of our meets... far from it... it will enhance them and it will afford protection to the committee and to those who take on leadership roles.... roles that have allowed everyone of us enjoy those great great days on the sea.

Mary

** A new Leader qualification is being developed by CI
Last edited by Mary Butler on Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

iskacommittee
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by iskacommittee » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:10 am

At the moment, ISKA does not have enough paddlers with leadership qualifications to guarantee the leader-to-paddler ratios are met on every ISKA trip. There is a training subsidy in place to improve this situation.

The insurance policies of CANI and Sports Cover Direct have the same requirement as the insurance policy of CI in terms of adhering to what is considered best practice.

The Sports Cover Direct policy is available here: https://www.sportscoverdirect.com/sport ... insurance/

You have to request a quote to get a copy of the policy. I did this and got the attached file. They provide insurance to people living in the UK and the ROI. This company was used as an example of what is available from independent insurance companies.

Regards,

John
Attachments

[The extension pdf has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


Tronayne
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:55 pm

Re: Insurance

Post by Tronayne » Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:29 pm

I have been reading the posts on ISKA website re insurance with some interest as I am no longer a member of the ISKA committee, having recently resigned as the East Coast rep.

I am very much aware that the topic of insurance is a very emotive one for ISKA members and paddlers in general but I do want to state the following before going into the insurance stuff that the committee looked at:

Sea kayaking can be a high risk sport with serious injury and sometimes death a possibility as we kayak. Accidents happen. Sometimes someone is at fault and sometimes not. Leaving the legal side aside for a moment injuries or death is or can be expensive. Insurance is often described as a necessary evil but it does provide cover either for the injured party or for those family members left behind.

When an accident or death occurs at sea or in rivers in Ireland one of the investigating bodies will be the Marine Casualty Investigation Board (MCIB). They will look to the national governing body of kayaking in Ireland, CI, for best practice standards because CI is recognised by the Irish Sports Council and the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI) as the governing body of the sport and recreation of canoeing in Ireland and is affiliated to International and European Canoe Federations. The ICU oversees training and qualification standards for the sport.

I am stating the above because, whether we like it or not, CI is the governing body of kayaking in Ireland and it does not matter whether a kayaker is a member of a club or not. CI set the standards.

This is important because a lot of kayakers think that having insurance will restrict the type of paddling that they do.
Perhaps we should look at it another way.

All that really matters on any trip is that all that went out return safely and uninjured, having had some fun along the way.

Everything is OK until something happens and then the questions will be asked.

An insurance company will expect that best practice will have been followed.

I maintain that even with no insurance best practice should be applied and if they are then insurance will not be restrictive. (Best practice is not about insurance, its about safety on the water. Insurance companies look to see that best practice is applied because it ensures as far as possible that every safety precaution was taken - this minimises their exposure to claims).

Safety should be the paramount consideration for paddlers and be the standard set to aim for.

ISKA is currently offering grants to its members who wish to upskill. (See Training 2017 in forum). The objective of the training programme is to provide a cohort of qualified paddlers who can help to meet the safety standards required of best practice and in the process that required to get the insurance cover.

I am one of two members of the committee who prepared a comparison report on the insurance issue for the committee.

The comparison was made between three providers: Canoeing Ireland (CI), Canoeing Association of Northern Ireland (CANI) and O'Driscoll O'Neil Insurance (ODON).

The CANI insurance cover required ISKA to have a constitution and as we do not have one we rejected it so I will report only on the CI and ODON information.

We put nineteen questions with 50 sub sections to each of the providers and I will make this available to you if I can post it up. (It is in a table to make comparison easy and I want to keep it that way).

As it happens CI insurance is provided by the broker ODON with CAITLIN as insurers for both CI and the independent quote from ODON for ISKA, so what is being compared is a direct quotation for ISKA from ODON and the insurance provided by CI by ODON.

They are very similar but there are some big differences.

The ODON ISKA insurance covers only trips/events carried out by ISKA (usually 6) in Ireland and UK.

The CI insurance covers all kayaking activities worldwide. (They need to be informed about any kayaking trips to USA).

The cost of ODON insurance is €12.55 per person based on 170 members. This includes 3rd party, directors and officers, legal fees and personal accident. Remember though that his covers only six to eight sessions per year. Neither ISKA nor individual members need to be affiliated to CI to avail of this insurance.

CI insurance: Affiliation to CI costs €30 as individual members and this includes insurance. CI insists that ISKA must be affiliated and that all individual ISKA members must also be affiliated to CI. ISKA affiliation costs €100 and if affiliated the cost to individual members is €20.

The chair of ISKA has an issue with CI about affiliation because there is no rule in CI that covers what happens if all club members do not affiliate. He is against ISKA affiliating unless CI gives written confirmation as to what will happen if this occurs.

I met with Paul Donnelly, president of CI executive, with another ISKA committee member and was assured that this issue would not be a problem for CI. He subsequently gave me this assurance twice by phone. I did not ask for it in writing.

I believe that ISKA should affiliate to CI as it is our NGB in ROI and to allow its members avail of the cheaper rate, a saving of some 1600 to ISKA members. (I think we should also affiliate to CANI to facilitate our NOI members). The issue about what happens if not all members join CI can be sorted later.

Non-members are covered by both insurances. It is up to ISKA to decide at what point a non-member should become a member although they did say that a non-member/visitor could attend two trips in a year before deciding to join or being asked to join by ISKA. Attending three times would be pushing it.

Peer paddles are covered by both insurances but best practice applies. Best practice is applied in quite a number of ISKA meets already. For example at last years ISKA meets best practice was applied on 50% of the Copper Coast trips and 66% of the trips on the Connemara meet. During the Symposium the majority of the trips met the requirements of best practice. This year the training programme will potentially produce 12 L4/4* paddlers for ISKA and up to 22 L3/3* paddlers for ISKA. If we consider that we already have leaders to cover perhaps 50% of meets then the leaders we get from this years training program will help to fill the balance. That’s 44 members being offered training this year or almost 25% of the membership or perhaps 50% of the paddling members who attend meetings. So things are set to improve quickly within ISKA.

ODON insurance will allow non-qualified kayakers to lead trips so long as these kayakers have had prior experience at leading in the prevailing conditions and best practice applies.

CI insurance does not allow this. They require qualified paddlers. The main problem with this is that the kayaking that we are doing now does not fit in with the CI award scheme. (See comment below).

Ratios: Odon have accepted that qualified L3 paddlers and above are not included in ratios. They have stated this in writing and will include it in a policy document.

CI ratios are fixed at L3, 1:8 on flat water and L4, ratio is not stated.

CI state on their website that they strongly advise clubs to take out their own insurance. This is to cover the club and its officers for non-kayaking accidents that could happen during an event. This would cover an incident that might happen at an overnight camping trip, for example, that was not directly kayak related.

One final point:

Sea kayaking does not appear to be a priority for CI. It does not even appear on the CI list of disciplines. The award schemes of the training and development unit (TDU) are not reflective of what is actually happening in sea kayaking in Ireland now. The TDU does not have a sea kayak leadership award.

I have spoken at length recently with Paul Donnelly and Adrian Shanahan, treasurer of CI executive, about these issues and I firmly believe that this is an opportune time for us as sea kayakers to assist CI and TDU to raise the profile of sea kayaking and to make changes to the TDU sea kayaking award schemes that reflect current sea kayaking practices.

There is no set best practice agreed by CI for sea kayaking and in conversations with them they suggested that ISKA, along with other sea kayaking clubs, might assist TDU in writing best practice for sea kayaking.

brianmacmahon
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by brianmacmahon » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:38 pm

Hi Tom,

From what I can gather from the information you've provided neither CANI or CI is currently fit for purpose.
Conor previously pointed this out and you have confirmed as much. As the association currently stands we cannot achieve the ratios and leadership required to be compliant. CI has L3 1:8 on calm water. When was the last time any of us have kayaked on calm water ??

I understand that CI are looking for guidelines regarding "Best Practise" and CANI would look for a constitution before allowing affiliation and insurance coverage.

As it currently stands ISKA has neither.

I'm a bit confused from reading your post regarding best practise.
Since ISKA currently doesn't have a constitution or best practise how did we achieve 50% best practise on the Copper Coast and 66% in Connemara. Perhaps you could clarify for me.

You did say "There is no set best practice agreed by CI for sea kayaking and in conversations with them they suggested that ISKA, along with other sea kayaking clubs, might assist TDU in writing best practice for sea kayaking"

If best practise does exist for sea kayakers I'd be interested in reading it.

I'd like to thank the committee for all the work and research that went into this. However if we are to have insurance then it must be robust and fit for purpose. It's pointless having coverage that merely provides a placebo effect and lulls us into a false sense of security. Any insurance that ISKA adopts would have to be iron clad because God forbid if there was a claim the insurance company will fight tooth and nail to avoid setting any precedent.


Mac

iskacommittee
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by iskacommittee » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:40 pm

At an ISKA committee meeting on 20th July 2016, it was decided to investigate the insurance options available to ISKA and its members, with a view to putting a proposal to ISKA members. The options available were investigated initially by Sue Honan and myself, and then by Tom Ronayne and myself. In January 2017, Tom and I submitted a summary report to the committee for consideration. This report outlined four options:
  • Affiliating to Canoeing Ireland (CI) and getting all ISKA members to join CI
  • Affiliating to the Canoeing Association of Northern Ireland (CANI) and getting all ISKA members to join CANI
  • Taking out an independent insurance policy with O Driscoll O Neill (ODON)
  • Requiring (or recommending that) all ISKA members join CI or CANI or take out a personal third party insurance policy
The committee had agreed to choose one option to be put to the members of ISKA for approval or rejection.

At an ISKA committee meeting on 4th Feb 2017, the advantages and disadvantages of the four options were discussed. There was no consensus on which option was the best. Through an agreed voting system, the option of requiring all ISKA members join CI or CANI or take out a personal third party insurance policy was selected as the option to put forward.

All of the insurance options require the insured to follow 'best practice'. A central part of best practice is the leader-to-paddler ratio. CI have no clear definition of best practice. We had to rely on the CI award qualifications. The BCU and therefore CANI define best practice in a 'Terms of Reference' document (see attached). The CI and CANI leader-to-paddler ratio is 1:8 or 1:6 depending on the conditions. The ODON policy also requires ISKA to follow (CI or CANI) best practice, however this policy did not count paddlers with a CI L3/BCU 3* award or higher in calculating the leader-to-paddler ratio. The CI and CANI insurance policies count all paddlers in calculating the leader-to-paddler ratio.

If an accident occurs at an ISKA meet in the Republic of Ireland, it is CI who will be asked it there was negligence involved. If an accident occurs at an ISKA meet in Northern Ireland, it is CANI who will be asked it there was negligence involved. They will answer this question with reference to their definition of best practice. This is why their definition of best practice is important.

Due to recent rule changes, if ISKA renews its affiliation to CI, all ISKA members are required to join CI. If ISKA affiliated to CANI, all ISKA members would have to join CANI and ISKA would need a constitution. Since ISKA is an all-island association, I have asked CI what would happen if ISKA affiliated with CI but not all ISKA members joined CI. In particular, I asked what would be the consequences for the CI insurance cover of the ISKA members that did join. They have said that they will get back to us. I have asked CANI the same questions and they have said they will check with their insurance company and get back to us. The committee is awaiting a response from CI and CANI before making any decision on affiliating to either.

Chris McDaid has reassured me that he is not against affiliating with CI or CANI. He is against affiliating with CI or CANI without a written response from them to the questions asked above.

Regards,

John
Attachments

[The extension pdf has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


DaveWalsh
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by DaveWalsh » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:46 pm

A few factoids that may, repeat MAY, have been lost in the morass of detail on this topic:
• Grants. Nothing new here. ISKA started grant aiding members seeking qualifications in 1998, which was the first year it became financially viable. I ran ISKA on a shoestring and Geo before me, until end 1997. Then Des Keaney and also Paul Butcher made the bank balance serious and the immediate decision was grant aiding members moving up through the ranks level 3, level 4 and so on, first aid too.
• TDU. Irish sea kayaking had no fit for purpose awards scheme at the turn of the century. ICU said they were keen and ISKA took on the task. Without flagging the fact, particularly. In about 2003 we designed a new awards structure, levels 2 – 5. We handed it to ICU who accepted it verbatim. They hadn’t any real choice. I would recommend a repeat of that process, if a new “best practice” statement or awards scheme is needed currently.
• Affiliation. We affiliated to ICU in about 1996 on an ad hoc opt-in basis. Individual sea paddlers could join ICU for a very small fee added to their ISKA membership. The motivation on our side was cheaper access to the Liffey Descent. Insurance wasn’t then an issue. They just wanted us inside the fold. Their then CEO was also a sea kayaker, which helped.
• Tasters. I agree with Tom. Two is fine. Mountaineers have three but they have a more benign insurance environment. Clubs, and lets face it, indecisive individuals also are pushing it at three ? There was a hint this was an unknown and parked?
• Directors’ insurance. Also personal accident insurance. These are good ideas of themselves. Independent of all this. We are talking here only “liability” stuff, where the blame game attributes big legal damages after an accident.
• ICU. An opinion. I wouldn’t fault anyone for wanting in writing what it seems the Committee want written down. Sorry Tom. The ICU 20 years ago and the ICU now want only what’s best for the ICU. The best way to deal with that is from the inside, take a seat on the Board. Get sea kayaking written in as a Discipline. Take your place among the nations of the Earth. It is (was anyway) ours for the asking. They want us in there is my best guess. But don’t trust them an inch. Send your best. Anyone weak will be eaten without salt.
DWalsh

fionatrahe
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by fionatrahe » Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:44 am

This is a thorny subject and despite a huge effort and exploration by the committee of the options, it is very difficult to find consensus.
The following are my personal opinions, not as a representative of the committee, but based on considering all the details available to me on the committee.

• I would like insurance that will cover me no matter what. (but can’t have that :( )
• Any insurance policy I’ve seen has so much wiggle room that there’s a probability it wouldn’t pay out in the case where I might need it.
• If ISKA were to get insurance as an organisation and cover all members as part of the membership fee, then ISKA would have to make sure best practice was followed. I think this is too hard to do at this point – my take on best practice is below.
• If I get insurance as an individual, I can choose the level I want, the excess I want, get covered for other sports too, etc. Same issues apply as would apply to an ISKA policy, I’m just more comfortable with the idea that the onus is on me to satisfy the conditions of the policy I choose. I won’t be looking for someone to blame and claim off their policy if something goes wrong, I’ll try to cover myself so I can claim on my own PA policy.
• Check your house insurance policy if you have one – there’s usually Public Liability attached, and it may cover you for negligence in a kayaking incident, I’m waiting for confirmation re mine, but initial reading shows no exclusion. Fingers crossed! You pay €hundreds for it, so it’s likely to be better than what you’ll get from CI for €20.
• Everyone should also call up your life insurance and health insurance providers and see if they exclude payout if you make a claim as a result of a kayaking incident.
• Re a point Geo raised – the excess on ODON policy is €500, on SportsDirect €50, on CI is €1000 (yes €1000!) for PL, CI €250 for PA, so flares and other equipment and small claims are likely to fall within the excess and not get paid out.
• Re Mary’s point: No-one would want to be in the situation of awaiting the outcome of an investigation and court case if an incident happens and you may be liable. BUT in my opinion, (and it’s speculative, and I’m not a solicitor) unfortunately you will be in that situation whether you’ve insurance or not, because there's a significant risk that the insurance won't pay out.
• Re another of Mary’s points – If sufficient leaders are trained AND best practice clarified, then we can reconsider the organisation getting insurance.

• I think with all the talk of CI we’re in danger of losing sight of what we’ve been asked to vote on. The vote is whether Public/3rd Party Liability insurance is compulsory for all members (vote Yes) or optional (vote No).
• I’ll be voting No because I think it’s too much red tape to enforce it and I think it’s a personal decision how much risk you want to take.

My take on best practice:
We can't be sure what would apply in an Irish court of law. CI are the governing body and they haven't written down best practice guidelines for sea kayaking.
We can make some assumptions re ratios and leaders/instructors, but have to guess at the sea conditions they apply to. E.g. any of the following trips which I’ve been on on ISKA meets probably qualify as BCU Advanced Sea which requires a BCU 5-star leader and 1:4 ratio (of instructor/students, not necessarily applicable to ISKA trips, not necessarily applicable in Ireland, but who knows?)

• Around Loop Head.
• Outside of Kilkee bay, heading either north or south.
• Around Valentia Island in a F4/5.
• Open crossing to Clare Island in a F3, and around the island. (Ok, I didn’t go around, but others did)
• Coastline west of Kinsale head, F3/4
• Streamstown out to Friar and High Island

Nothing absolves any of us as individuals from a duty of care towards those on the water with us and other 3rd parties, (swimmers, surfers, etc), those leading and/or with more expertise are likely to be considered to have a greater duty of care.
Is this fair on leaders? Maybe not. I think one option, where leaders are not sure if they can satisfy assumed ratios would be to designate a trip as a peer paddle. I think as long as you have a reasonable explanation for what you did, and try to act at the level of your experience/training then you’re unlikely to be found negligent.
I’ll be accused of naivety and it’s probably true. But I also think it naïve to believe that an insurance policy will pay out when there’s so little clarity re best practice that they may easily find a way to avoid it.
I think ISKA’s energy and funds should be spent on safety and skills training to minimise the likelihood that anyone will need to test their insurance policy. Rather than on enforcing regulations to satisfy an insurance policy.

I hope we can stop talking about insurance soon :D

Chancer
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by Chancer » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:55 pm

I believe that there are many qualified leaders in ISKA who are fully aware of and apply best practice when leading at ISKA meets. The ISKA training programme for 2017 should produce approx 12 L4/4* qualified paddlers with navigation and REC qualifications who will lead ISKA meets in addition to those who already give of their expertise and time to lead at ISKA meets. In addition the Trg programme should produce an additional 22 L3/3* qualified paddlers. This will increase the pool of already capable paddlers in ISKA. The result will be less chance of an incident occurring where the insurance might be required. However even with best practice applied on every meet accidents will happen and that's where your CI insurance could be very welcome.

Like all insurances we carry nobody likes having to take it out, everyone tries to weigh the risk and get the lowest quote to cover that risk. We wonder if an accident occurs whether we will be covered. It's the nature of insurance. If you stick your neck out far enough, take far too many chances, ignore best practice, go where you are advised not to go then you can hardly rely on your insurance to cover your recklessness. Most people fortunately don't do that and we have a waiver for the more reckless among us that clearly points out the danger and your own responsibility as a participant in an adventure sport. The unfortunate lady who fell and injured herself on a boardwalk found that out in court recently.

We give safety briefs onshore, carry the correct safety equipment, prepare a trip plan taking into account the weather, wind, tides, location, time of year, size of group, experience of group, medical condition of group etc etc. This is best practice, it's not rocket science and all paddlers do it to a greater or lesser degree. The more experienced and qualified paddlers do it better.

It's the intention of ISKA committee as far as I can judge to put the ISKA meets on a continuous upward path of improvement. This means improving the standards of the members by providing a Trg programme and in this way see that the best practices are applied increasingly at meets. This is great. Anything that helps increase the skill level, the safety for members should be applauded. It's a safety thing it's not an insurance thing.

CI membership gives us the cover for when things go wrong, when a member of the public or a club member is injured. CI membership covers us for all our paddling not just on ISKA meets but worldwide with groups of friends or with our club. It gives us the right to participate in CI events such as the Liffey Descent, other marathon races, CI Trg cses, surf events etc. for the princely sum of €20 for members of affiliated CI clubs, societies or associations. I am recommending to members that they should accept the committee recommendation and vote yes to have CI membership for all ISKA members.

When you ally that proposal to the Trg programme put in place by the committee I believe ISKA is heading in the right direction and is set to become the standard bearer for high Seakayaking standards of throughout Ireland. It is an association of 170 members from all corners of the island and as such represents the greatest number of seakayakers under one banner exceeding any other club membership by a large margin.

The way meets are conducted will not change in any appreciable way in my opinion. My own club ECSKC introduced compulsory insurance for members a few years ago and the only change noted was a determination by the 12 man strong leader group to raise the standard of paddling throughout the club and the safety standards for the leaders through continuous CPD. For the general club paddler the effect is negligible. We still go out in very challenging conditions, tailored to the skill levels of the individuals to provide adventure on the sea for everyone. Insurance is never considered as a factor in our Seakayaking. Safety and enjoyment are the only considerations I have ever heard a leader refer to. ISKA will be no different if we accept the committee recommendation. The diverse nature, geographical spread and unknown standards among members separate ISKA from other clubs and in my opinion increases the requirement for an insurance cover for all members.

If we are to take our place among the nations of the earth as Dave suggests then we need to affiliate to CI to get our foot in the door. There are a number of ISKA members well capable of taking on the role of CI Seakayaking Rep. Contacts by the committee with CI give reason to hope that perhaps this is the opportune time to consider getting inside the CI tent to effect the changes we as sea kayakers need to see. Affiliating to CI will also give members the chance to join as CI members for 20 rather than 30 Euro a saving of some 1600 Euro to members.

It is surprising to see a current ISKA committee member recommending members vote against her own committee majority recommendations on this issue.

emma.glanville
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:33 pm

Re: Insurance

Post by emma.glanville » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:06 pm

for starters i am not anti insurance if it is fit for purpose. i may just be being a bit ditsy here but can someone explain to me how me having personal liability insurance or not effects ISKA? secondly we should strive for safety at sea regardless of pl insurace cover or not. so geting back to what we have been asked to vote on. the vote is yes to insist everyone has PL liability insurance or no to allow everyone to decide for themselves, which brings me back to my first point.
if i have this wrong please let me know.

Post Reply