UK Athletics Insurance

There have been changes as from 31st March 2009 to the insurance provided to athletics by UKA. The insurance brokers to the scheme Oval have been replced by Marsh. Also without notice and backdated to 31st October 2008 there have been substantial increases in the deductibles.

Deductibles now are "GBP250 each and every claim in respect of claims made by any member coach, official, athletics club increasing to GBP750 each and every claim in respect of any other claims." So for volunteers, club members and participants in club organised events the deductible is now £750 as opposed to NIL previously. £750 is a lot of money for most people.

Incidentally the deductible under the ARC insurance for personal injury is NIL.


  • sorry to be a thickie Michael,

    when you say deductibles, is that like an excess?  So if a runner got injured and made a claim, a UKA club would have to pay the first £250/750?

  • That's how I've read it Farnie...
  • Farnie Deductible and Excess are the same. There is now a £250 excess on the UKA insurance for coaches,officials and clubs and a £750 excess for everybody else. So if a club member knocks over a pedestrian and the pedestrian sues the club member and the claim is settled for £2000. Then the insurer pays £1250 and the club member pays £750.

    The new insurance brokers Marsh are a North American company so presumably use American terminology ie deductible rather than the usual word in the UK "excess".

    I am not quite sure about the legality of backdating an increase in an excess by 6 months !

  • I am even further convinced that UK:A are a waste of space!

    The only reason we continue to be affiliated as a club is for the London Marathon place.  Otherwise, we either wouldn't bother or would consider ARC.

  • WombleWomble ✭✭✭

    I e-mailed UKA about insurance from my position as a Club Secretary and got this reply:

    "We have changed brokers and their procedures and methods of reporting are different to our previous brokers and this is how the misunderstandings have occurred.  It is unusual for us to issue copies of the policy and there are a number of issues in it that can be viewed as "commercially confidential".  I am in the process of obtaining a copy that can be issued and I will forward this when it is available.In the meantime I confirm that the insurer, the policy the levels of cover and excess conditions have not changed in any way."
  • UKA's new insurance broker Marsh issued a confirmation of insurance letter dated 3rd April 2009 which clearly stated that the policy excess of £250 or £750 applied to all claims ie both property damage and personal injury. After this had been pointed out by ARC Marsh and UKA withdrew this confirmation of insurance letter and issued an amended letter also dated 3rd April 2009 which stated that the excess only applied to property damage claims.

    This could be an error made by Marsh and UKA or it could be a retreat forced on Marsh and UKA by competition from ARC.

  • Lovely posting Michael, worthy of 10 Downing Street. (Incidently, I believe there may be a few vacancies going in the scaremongering dept. if you are interested)

    I don't suppose you are connected to ARC by any chance?

  • Golly Gosh Michael

    Must be time for ARC's annual membership drive.

  • Extreme Muzzy Do you think it right or acceptable that UKAthletics refuse to make a copy of their insurance policy available to those who are protected by it and who wish to inspect it ? What is "commercially confidential" about UKAthletics insurance policy ?

    To the best of my knowledge there is no other sports governing body who decline to allow their members to inspect their insurance policy.

  • WombleWomble ✭✭✭
    So why didn't you post the information about the withdrawal of the first letter until my post?
  • Because Womble I am not employed by UKAthletics. It is their responsibility to advise their members of the cover provided by their policy and important and relevant information such as the identity of their insurance broker.

    The road running community has benefited enormously from the presence of ARC. In Scotland where ARC is not active members of Scottish Athletics and their clubs pay £22 for each member to Scottish Athletics. In addition unattached runners pay £2 each at Scottish races and the whole of this is paid to Scottish Athletics.

    You Womble should be very concerned at the increasing regulation being imposed on the road running clubs and their races. It could become almost impossible to get volunteers to assist at races if this trend continues. Watch carefully the outcome of Run Britain's working groups.

    I doubt that the leaders of most clubs training groups are protected by the UKA insurance policy. Is this a reasonable way to treat our volunteers ? 

    The number of races being issued with ARC permits is increasing rapidly. Already 151 permits issued for races in 2009 compared to 207 for the whole of 2008. Fortunately ARC is a very healthy organisation. Actually the only organisation in UK athletics able to stand on its own feet without Government funding.

  • WombleWomble ✭✭✭

    It seems a bit much to publicise something which might alarm clubs and their members and then omit to also publicise the correct position when known to you. UK:A/EA had nothing to publicise as nothing material had changed. It was you/the ARC which was scaremongering. Why is the name of the broker of any import when the actual insurance itself remains unchanged, as stated by UK:A/EA?

    I'd suggest that it's always best to sell on the merits of your own product rather than slag off the competition.

  • Womble I publicised the correct position as evidenced by insurance documentation issued by Marsh and UKAthletics. Following my emails Marsh and UKA withdrew their documentation and issued further documentation with a reduced excess.

    Do you think Marsh and UKA would have changed the documentation if I had not kicked up a stink about it ?  I seek to protect the position of Britain's clubs. It is very necessary to draw clubs attention to the fact that documentation has been issued by UKA which imposes a wacking great excess on their insurance and then back dates this by 6 months.

    I take issue with you on your statement that a change of broker is of no import.  Clubs provide evidence of insurance information on a regular basis to landowners, National Trust, Forestry Commission, MOD and local councils. This information needs to be accurate. It is not accurate if it shows the wrong intermediary and the wrong policy number.

  • WombleWomble ✭✭✭

    I have never had to produce any evidence of my club's insurance to anyone. Perhaps we are lucky.

    I don't understand why you continue to insist, in effect, that UKA was lying. They say that there was a misunderstanding and nothing ever changed. Is it wrong to believe what they say?

  • I accept that UKA are telling the truth. UKA are not liars. They are world class experts at spin. If the new insurance broker misunderstood the cover provided then it is just as well that I picked it up and publicised the fact. UKA should thank me for my assistance not abuse me.

  • Have UKA abused you, I don't think you mentioned that in your earlier posts.

    What form did the abuse take?

  • Well I haven't been physically threatened yet.  It was a private email from UKAthletics widely circulated and leaked to me.

  • And....................................................................?

  • No response...................Oh dear it looks the hitman got him.
  • I have to say that I am very surprised to see this thread still here.
    Normally, even the faintest whiff of libel has RW cazzing the thread and emails sent.

    Michael - you say you "accept that UKA are telling the truth. UKA are not liars. They are world class experts at spin."

    What the hell do you think "spin" is if not lies ??
    In effect you are still calling them liars.
    Please be very careful, for your own sake.

  • Extreme muzzy. Spinning news is not lying. Lying is to deliberately tell a falsehood. I have never come across an occasion when anybody at UKAthletics or England Athletics has done this.  
  • As from 1st November 2009 the excesses or deductibles under the UKA insurance policy have been increased.

    They are now "GBP250 each and every claim or series of claims arising out of one occurence in respect of claims made by full time UK Athletics Members ie any member coach, official, athletics club or athletics association of the insured, increasing to GBP750 each and every claim or series of claims arising out of one occurrence in respect of claims made by Non Athletic Affiliated Members."

    The excess for personal injury claims has been increased from NIL to £250 but to £750 if the claim is made by somebody who is not a member of UKAthletics

    Much better to affiliate to ARC whose insurance has no excess for personal injury and £250 for property damage

Sign In or Register to comment.