Caravan Insurance - Is It Really Nesessary

[Surfer]

Its my age....
I posted a reply for Holoiday22 in the insurance section in here by mistake - sorry for the confusion. I note that Raywood has already responded in the insurance section.
I note Ray's response, outlining the current insurance industry normal response.

If something has become a 'tradition' (such as the site owners not being liable for damage to customers property) that in my view means its ripe to be re evaluated. Any organisation selling storage or security must make their service exceptional in those respects and expect to hammered if they fail.

If they don't provide what they advertise and sell then that is fraud.

John you are correct about the storage owner being responsible for the care of your property as that contract took place the moment the contract was signed. The owner of the flooded caravan can probably claim as the the storage owner was negligent as they did not take any preventive measures. This is under "tort" in common law, however many storage owners have a clause stating thart the caravan shoudl be insured at all times. I am not sure whether that is an "unfair" clause but I doubt it.

 

[Dustydog]

Why can't I access a specimen CASSOA contract on the web?

It seems you can only see jt once you sign up for storage with one of their members.
The
Like Prof and Surfer I suspect these storage sites only want your money with no responsibilty all.

 

[Sproket]

Why can't I access a specimen CASSOA contract on the web?

It seems you can only see jt once you sign up for storage with one of their members.
The
Like Prof and Surfer I suspect these storage sites only want your money with no responsibilty all.

One i found earlier

CaSSOA search

 

[Dustydog]

That's it Steve.
Note clause 18.

Imo the answer to the OP is Yes.
It is necessary to insure your caravan.

 

[Surfer]

That's it Steve.
Note clause 18.

Imo the answer to the OP is Yes.
It is necessary to insure your caravan.

I think you meant clause 8 and not 18, however either way the storage owner does have some responsibility, i.e. they are aware that the area floods every 2 - 3 years or allows fire hazards to eb created i.e. chinese lanterns etc. Your insurnace company can claim off the stoarge owner's insurance if the storage owner allowed an uninsured caravan onto the property without checking and that caravan caused an incident.
I guess it is a subject that can be debated for days as there are so many differnt angles and perspective. Insurance is worth it just for the sole reason of them employing people to negotiate a settlement on your behalf with no or little stress to you.

 

[paws]

Q Caravan Insurance - Is It Really Nesessary?
A Not if you are rich
For those of us who are not rich, then most would answer Yes.

 

[Dustydog]

That's it Steve.
Note clause 18.

Imo the answer to the OP is Yes.
It is necessary to insure your caravan.

I think you meant clause 8 and not 18, however either way the storage owner does have some responsibility, i.e. they are aware that the area floods every 2 - 3 years or allows fire hazards to eb created i.e. chinese lanterns etc. Your insurnace company can claim off the stoarge owner's insurance if the storage owner allowed an uninsured caravan onto the property without checking and that caravan caused an incident.
I guess it is a subject that can be debated for days as there are so many differnt angles and perspective. Insurance is worth it just for
the sole reasonof them employing people to negotiate a settlement on your behalf with no or little stress to you.

Surfer

No. I mean clause 18. They exclude ALL Liabilities.
What an unfair term that is!

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

hi all,
Interesing thead despite the two'ing and fro'ing, here is my slant on it,
bought first van 1970, had it 5years was it insured NO, was there any problems in not doing so NO.
changed for bigger van 1975, was it insured NO, was there any problems in not doing so NO.
1984 lost van (during strike) nothing insurance could have done about that,
1987 bought (shed) sorry another van and did it up, was it insured NO, was there any problems in not doing so NO.
1993 bought motorhome and rebuilt it, was it insured YES, it had to be as this was compulsory, kept it 12years, evermade a claim NO,
2005 bought new van, was it insured, you bet it was for 13k it was daft not to do so, and still is today even though it is not been used and kept in a garage that resembles Fort Knox,
nigh on 44 years without any insurance issues or claims but I could just have been lucky, how lucky do you feel!!! is insurance really that important years gone by probably not but a lot has changed in the last 20years.

 

[otherclive]

I've never made an insurance claim in my life. Do I think insurance is necessary.....yes. Do I regret paying premiums over the years....No. But I don't insure domestic items only those things where a loss or liability would cause me grief. I have no sympathy whatsoever when I see folks on TV bemoaning a loss only to reveal that they are not insured. Life's about choices.

 

[FrintonMike]

I do not understand any one who does not insure their van.
In the last 5 years I have had to claim twice. The first time was debris on the A14 which shredded a tyre, the car and van went down the embankment and both were a write off.
The second time was last year when it looks as if some one backed into the van whilst unattended. It needed a new rear pannel.
Nothing I could do about either incident and without insurance I may not have been able to replace the vans

 

[Surfer]

That's it Steve.
Note clause 18.

Imo the answer to the OP is Yes.
It is necessary to insure your caravan.

I think you meant clause 8 and not 18, however either way the storage owner does have some responsibility, i.e. they are aware that the area floods every 2 - 3 years or allows fire hazards to eb created i.e. chinese lanterns etc. Your insurnace company can claim off the stoarge owner's insurance if the storage owner allowed an uninsured caravan onto the property without checking and that caravan caused an incident.
I guess it is a subject that can be debated for days as there are so many differnt angles and perspective. Insurance is worth it just for
the sole reasonof them employing people to negotiate a settlement on your behalf with no or little stress to you.

Surfer

No. I mean clause 18. They exclude ALL Liabilities.
What an unfair term that is!

Okay I understand your angle and you are quite correct. In court that would probably be thrown out under Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I'm pretty sure, because of the language used, this set of T&C's have been drafted through a law firm.

Overall this is the first time I have seen a set of CaSOA T&C's, and I am actually quite impressed with the scope of the content, but from a non-qualified legal perspective, here are my thoughts on some of the relevant clauses to this thread.

Clause 1, makes it very clear that the proprietor accepts temporary custody of the goods. As far as I can determine 'Custody' means "taking control of" (Farlex dictionary) That expressly means the proprietor has responsibility for the safekeeping of the goods. Incidentally that is one of the reasons why the police have to consider the health, safety and well being of people when they are 'taken into custody'.

Clause 2 makes it very clear the owner of the goods does not have full control of the goods whilst in this storage.

Clause 16 actually imposes the duty on the operator to use "due diligence in providing a fit and proper place for the storage of goods" As the proprietor is in control of they goods they must take appropriate decisions and actions to protect the goods. That covers both actions or inactions that result in a loss for the customer.

This all suggests if the location is not secure, or is prone to flooding or the pitches do not have adequate fire breaks to prevent fire spread the operator has failed in their contractual duty.

Clause 18 may attempt to exempt the site from any responsibility, but such an exclusion has in other situations (e.g. car parks) has been shown to be vulnerable, as the operator are deemed to have responsibilities to customers despite notices to the contrary.

How the insurance companies would interpret this is one thing, but we have to be mindful they don't write the law, and after all they have a vested interest and will try to avoid having to pay out.

The courts would I am sure take a dim view of a promise made to look after goods, but then all liability being denied when the organisation fails in that regard.

 

[otherclive]

What is deemed a reasonable firebreak on a storage site. Our Cassoa site requires bottles to be removed when the van is unattended and noxoius substances etc. But I cannot enviage a storage site having pitch spacings that help to reduce or delay the spraed of fire. just look at the CC and C&CC storage areas the vans are just spaced far enough apart to be able to open the doors and get your winder onto the steadies. Also the vans are invariably wheel locked and steadies down thus preventing quick movements. However apart from carelessness on someone's part, or natural events such as lightning, the risk of fire is very low. But if say one van did catch fire due to an electrical fault in a live 12v circuit, I doubt that the site owner can be deemed negilgent if a load of other vans caught fire. Unless of course by his/her actions the situation was made worse, ie there was a big delay in calling the emergency services or when they arrive acces was barred.

 

[Surfer]

BTW if you are towing and the uninsured caravan becomes detached and causes damage to third property, does any one know if the insurance company can claim back those third party costs from you. In the event after an accident and the road needs to be cleared up, who has to pay for the clearing up of bits & pieces, glass etc excluding damage to railings etc as the latter would be covered by third party cover.

 

[otherclive]

If towing and an accident occurs as you describe it would fall to your cars insurer. Unless they had grounds to show negligence on your part then I doubt they would seek to claim against you.

 

[ProfJohnL]

.......But if say one van did catch fire ........, I doubt that the site owner can be deemed negilgent if a load of other vans caught fire.

Hello Clive,
That's exactly the type of point, With caravans so closely packed as you describe, it is almost certain that if one caravan were to go on fire (regardless of cause), it will affect adjacent vans and possibly more, before action to can be taken to move vans to create a fire break. Its debatable if it is actually safe for someone to try and move caravans if there is a blaze that close by, after all who knows what some caravanners may have left in their vans.

In a fire, even the small camping gaz bottles for hanging lamps or blow torches contain enough energy to blow windows and roof lights out of caravans, and I suspect that in the right place inside a caravan one could split a wall or certainly spread a fire beyond the confines of a caravan.

Such close storage is therefore a fire incident waiting to happen. I think that could be argued it is a predictable outcome and therefore not a diligent action.

 

[otherclive]

Yes but it's not reasonable to expect a storage site to pitch at the same spacing as a touring site. Where our van is stored there are about 500 units which are in lines with about 4-5 ft between vans side to side. Front to front and back to back space is newer 14 m. So in the event of a fire I would see possibly a single row as at serious risk. Ie about 20 vans. On your basis no storage site could be viable as storage costs would price customers out and also if they are accidents waiting to happen insurance costs would be prohibitive. Which clearly is not the case. The risks are low but an incident would lead to some payouts. However allowing Chinese lanterns would be culpable action.

 

[Raywood]

My reading of clause 18 is a convoluted way of saying they exclude all liability except for their own negligence.
A complete denial of liability might fall foul of The Unfair Contract Terms Act but that depends on what terms other storage sites in the area have. The more that do the better your position as they are then using their position to disadvantage you. If one site has the exclusion and others do not then it is your choice to use them and your case is weaker.
The terms are comp[letely different to the CASSOA site we used until last year so it may not be a standard wording.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Yes but it's not reasonable to expect a storage site to pitch at the same spacing as a touring site. ...............

Hello Clive, I didn't suggst a minimum spacing because I don't know what is a safe minimum spacing for storage purposes, But fire spread should form part of the risk assessmsnt the site uses in determinig their van spacing. It is a reasonable assumption that the risk of a fire starting is less on a storage site, but if a fire does start on a tightly packed site, the risk of spread is much higher, and that should be a major factor as they manage the site and control the storage density. They must be liable if the gap is too small and it allows an incident with one caravan to affect others. If this means they have to rearrange their storage and they loose spaces, well thats the name of the game. They have up until now been making more profit than they should because they have over stuffed their available space.

 

[Dustydog]

Extract from Club Sites Rules:
4c:-
"To avoid the spread of fire, there must be at least 6 metres spacing between facing walls of adjacent caravans, motorhomes or trailer tents and a minimum clear space of 3 metres between adjoining outfits in any direction."
This is from the CC and based on most Councils By Laws for Touring Park usage. These are occupied units.
When it comes to storage no such guidelines appear available other than a lot of sites demand batteries , gas cylinders and the like are removed .
If it can be proven the storage Owners allowed the use of chinese laterns on their property and it was they that caused the fire then I'd hope our Law Courts will find against them. Hopefully down the line Barristers on both sides will be discussing the Legal implications in fine detail.No doubt all will be revealed in the press in due course.

 

[Surfer]

Hopefully down the line Barristers on both sides will be discussing the Legal implications in fine detail.No doubt all will be revealed in the press in due course.

More than likely they are discussing how much they can charge their clients.