Jump to content
Karen A

Personal Liability Insurance

Recommended Posts

Hi All.

I have just received a letter from NAS.I have been invited to take out personal liability insurance in order to ''sleep easy''.The cover would protect me in the event of a member of the public holding me responsible for bodily injury or damage to property caused by a person with ASD in my care.

 

I am not happy.I thought that the NAS was a charity set up with the aim of educating people regarding ASD.I feel like this suggests that Ben is likely to create damage that others will then hold me responsible for.Is Ben really so much more of a liability than the average member of the public that I need to spend £24 a year on insurance?

 

 

I have not come across other charities suggesting that the relatives or carers of those with disabilities need to take out insurance to protect them against the possibility of their relative causing bodily injury or damage to property. :unsure:

I do not have a diagnosis of ASD however if I did I do not think I would like the idea of my relatives being sent letters suggesting that I was a liability.

Sorry I am a bit hot under the collar.I am used to supporting Ben and advocating for him.I am usually dealing with the issue of Ben being looked after in relation to having a disability.Now if the NAS could provide insurance against other people being a liability in their treatment of Ben I might be interested. :angry::angry::ph34r::o

I am a supporter and member of NAS but just feel perhaps they have misjudged this one.

Karen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not happy.

 

...

 

I do not have a diagnosis of ASD however if I did I do not think I would like the idea of my relatives being sent letters suggesting that I was a liability.

I am so glad you have written this. I wrote, deleted, rewrote, redeleted etc etc a similar (although using worse words! :whistle:) post yesterday after opening my post but couldn't write write what I wanted in a way that expressed how I felt without potentially breaking the forum rules or upsetting people. I am not happy either. :(:tearful:

 

I got sent this letter myself yesterday (although apparently it seems it seems I can't take out the insurance myself to protect others from me :huh::lol:) and was really upset by the implications that I was going to hurt people because of my ASD, that's it's acceptable to think that ASD individuals will hurt people because that's what autism is and that it's acceptable for the public not to develop understanding but to demonise us and (potentially with a good lawyer in tow to rehash events and make then worse) make money out of suing us for being who we are.

 

Maybe the insurance company have been watching Crimewatch and reading the Daily Wail a little too closely? The NAS have certainly got this wrong because it means they don't have a neutral stance once they endorse (and sending out mass mailing just for one company is endorsement) a product/company.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so glad you have written this. I wrote, deleted, rewrote, redeleted etc etc a similar (although using worse words! :whistle:) post yesterday after opening my post but couldn't write write what I wanted in a way that expressed how I felt without potentially breaking the forum rules or upsetting people. I am not happy either. :(:tearful:

 

I got sent this letter myself yesterday (although apparently it seems it seems I can't take out the insurance myself to protect others from me :huh::lol:) and was really upset by the implications that I was going to hurt people because of my ASD, that's it's acceptable to think that ASD individuals will hurt people because that's what autism is and that it's acceptable for the public not to develop understanding but to demonise us and (potentially with a good lawyer in tow to rehash events and make then worse) make money out of suing us for being who we are.

 

Maybe the insurance company have been watching Crimewatch and reading the Daily Wail a little too closely? The NAS have certainly got this wrong because it means they don't have a neutral stance once they endorse (and sending out mass mailing just for one company is endorsement) a product/company.

 

I have wondered this afternoon whether I have managed to say what I wanted to whilst staying within Forum rules.

I am sure the mods will sort me out if I have crossed the line :P .

As for upsetting people I think the letter was pretty upsetting for me and not what I expected in the post. :tearful:

I am not so worried about the company endorsement.All charities are facing hard times and I know they need to be ever more creative in raising funds.However I think it unwise to alienate the very people that you are supposed to be supporting who already feel marginalised. :tearful:

I have been around on the Forum for a while and consider myself fairly well informed now.I cannot image how I would have felt four years ago when I knew very little about ASD if the first information I had recieved through the post was information on liability insurance in case my child hurt someone or damaged their property.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mum mentioned this to me yesterday (ive not had a letter yet) and i was surprised to be honest. I wont be taking the insurence. I would like think that most people would be understanding IF my son damaged something by accident and i dont think that he is any more likely than my other children to get into the kind of situation where we might get sued! And i dont want insurence for them either!

I cant think there would be many who are prepared to sue a child (with a disability or not) for getting caught in a situation where they have been hit accidentally when the child has lashed out either, unless very seriously hurt but maybe thats me being naive :unsure:

Edited by brooke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi got mine yesterday, re my son, was a bit surprised I must say! Then I got to thinking it may cover me for the damage he does to other peoples property or the taxi, not sure if the house insurace would cover this, then I just threw it away. But if you have a child who can be violent/agressive/destructive like mine, perhaps in this day and age you could be sued? Enid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also very surprised to receive the same letter yesterday.

 

I wonder why a charity who claim to support people with autism would send out material suggesting we are likely to commit violent crimes against members of the public. I am currently seeking employment and this kind of message would not encourage employers to hire me if I may be a danger to their other staff or customers. I am not sure how this type of thing helps autistic people as a whole.

 

Is there even a precedent of carers being sued because of behaviour resulting from ASD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable!!! :angry:

 

Which insurance company is trying to making a fast buck out of preying on parents' fears? :wacko: Does the NAS benefit financially from this?

 

What next??? Insurance for parents of all children under 3? (because toddlers are pretty destructive aren't they?), families with an adult over 60 (because people with alzheimers are fairly unpredictable and can lash out too) - or how about insurance for parents with teenagers - (because they all carry knives, beat each other up, and drive dangerously).

 

I nearly cancelled my NAS subscription over the Gary Mackinnon issue - I'm seriously thinking of doing it now. :wacko:

 

K x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbelievable!!! :angry:

 

Which insurance company is trying to making a fast buck out of preying on parents' fears? :wacko: Does the NAS benefit financially from this?

 

What next??? Insurance for parents of all children under 3? (because toddlers are pretty destructive aren't they?), families with an adult over 60 (because people with alzheimers are fairly unpredictable and can lash out too) - or how about insurance for parents with teenagers - (because they all carry knives, beat each other up, and drive dangerously).

 

I nearly cancelled my NAS subscription over the Gary Mackinnon issue - I'm seriously thinking of doing it now. :wacko:

 

K x

 

I gather the mods do not have an issue with my raising the topic then. ;) yourself and Tally too. :hypno:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

foster carers are instructed to get public liability insurance in relation to damage done by children in our care. our current placement is 3 years old and this afternoon walked out of nursery and hugged the front of our car announcing 'i love betty car'. :wub: shes a real risk to other people.

 

our home insurance also doesn't cover any damage done by children in our care to our house or property as they are not considered part of the household :shame:

 

i'm sudenly quite glad that there seems to be an error with my NAS subscription. i dont get any mailings or information (but they money went out of my account) and that now seems like a great thing. all they need to do now is join up with Autism Speaks and create another one of those 'autistics wreck everything' adverts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a legal point of view

 

You can only be sued if you have acted negligently. therefore, if you know your ASD child is destructive or physically violent, yet you send him out on his own, you could be sued for any damage he caused (in theory - in practise he'd have to cause a lot of damage to make it worth anyone's while suing you!) Equally, if you know that your ASD child is going to throw all the stuff of the shelves at Tesco's cos he doesn't like blue, but you insist on taking him with you to Tesco's each week, you could, in theory be sued for the damage.

 

HOWEVER, you can NOT be sued for damage caused if you have taken all reasonable precautions. ie: if you keep destructive child under strict supervision at all times, or go shopping in Sainsbury's instead of Tescos etc....

 

I can not see ANY need for this insurance. I am appalled NAS is promoting the concept, let alone the specific company!

 

(Foster carers are in a slightly different position - because they are paid to look after the children they need PL insurance as part of the H&S legislation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I gather the mods do not have an issue with my raising the topic then. ;) yourself and Tally too. :hypno:

 

No - as long as you don't say *##&! or *&*### ##!!, you're OK. :whistle::whistle:

 

I must hastily add that the NAS do a good job in many respects - the information on their website is excellent and their education advocacy is a valuable and vital service. But I think in this case they have nade an error of judgement. I don't have a problem with them for making this facility available for members who need it and choose to avail themselves of it. I see it's advertised on the website as one of the benefits of membership. I think, though. that sending out an indiscriminate mailshot like this is insensitive.

 

K x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No - as long as you don't say *##&! or *&*### ##!!, you're OK. :whistle::whistle:

 

Asperger and ASD Guidelines and Rules:

8. The use of swear words on this forum is not acceptable and the moderators will remove any such postings immediately. Please note that this includes the using @, #, * etc. to replace certain letters in the word. :shame: :shame:

 

Hmm, now Kathryn is a moderator meaning that by the guidelines she would have to remove her own post immediately - would this be before posting or not and would it still could as posting... :wacko: :wacko:

 

I think, though. that sending out an indiscriminate mail-shot like this is insensitive.

That's the bit I don't understand. Why send it to Tally and myself (and therefore, presumably other non-parents of ASD individuals). The mail shot is a waste of money (and trees) and just causes upset/anger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asperger and ASD Guidelines and Rules:

8. The use of swear words on this forum is not acceptable and the moderators will remove any such postings immediately. Please note that this includes the using @, #, * etc. to replace certain letters in the word.

:shame: :shame:

 

Hmm, now Kathryn is a moderator meaning that by the guidelines she would have to remove her own post immediately - would this be before posting or not and would it still could as posting... :wacko: :wacko:

 

Ah but I didn't type any swear words. I typed *##&! and *&*### ##!!

 

What else were you thinking, Mumble? :shame: You've obviously been spending too long in the company of sailors. :whistle::whistle:;)

 

K x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I aint to keen on the idea of PLI for people, it should be kept for bouncy castle ect...

Every single human on the planet would need to be PLI as were all capable of damaging almost everything, even our own planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that you are a teacher in a special school. An autistic child assaults you and you suffer an injury and are no longer able to work. You have a few options. Sue the child- most teachers wouldnt want to and the child wont have any money. Sue the school - you have an uphill struggle - what could they have done to prevent this happening. Each case is fact specific. What were the risk assessments? Was this an apppropriate placement? If the child had insurance then it might be easier for the teacher to get some compensation. However it would depend on the terms of the insurance- the risk is I suspect that the child's insurers would blame the school and so you would end up suing both. If the school had done all they could at least the teacher could possibly still get some compensation.

This type of insurance may have its place in some circumstances IMO. It would seem that the way it has been sold is perhaps not the most sensitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine that you are a teacher in a special school. An autistic child assaults you and you suffer an injury and are no longer able to work. You have a few options. Sue the child- most teachers wouldnt want to and the child wont have any money. Sue the school

I think that the whole notion of suing and compensation is indicative of the society/culture we now live in and we're already sliding down a very slippery slope. Such insurance schemes legitimise this culture.

 

If a fireman/woman was injured putting out a fire in a house we would be cross if s/he then sued the homeowner for letting their house go on fire. Fire-fighting is part of the 'reasonable risks' or their job and they take risk assessments and all the possible precautions to protect themselves.

 

I have been assaulted by and autistic child in a mainstream school - OK, so I only walked around with the most magnificent shiner for a while - but I would never dream of suing the child/parents. When something like that happens you have to ask what the circumstances leading up to it were (in this case very poor school support structures) and look at learning from the experiences. That learning isn't going to happen if you are caught up in a blame culture where you are unable to move on from the incident.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your injuries were such that you were never able to work again would that not change your opinion? If you had a car accident which was caused by someone else and suffered an injury would you also not claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your injuries were such that you were never able to work again would that not change your opinion? If you had a car accident which was caused by someone else and suffered an injury would you also not claim?

I'm not allowed to drive so this would be hypothetical, but isn't it a legal requirement to have third party car insurance? Isn't there also a difference between an activity (driving, bungee jumping, etc) leading to injury (self or others) and an individual supposedly being the cause of injury?

 

If I was injured by a child in a classroom that lead to permanent injury, I would seriously be questioning the school's processes/actions which led to the incident rather than the child themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine that you are a teacher in a special school. An autistic child assaults you and you suffer an injury and are no longer able to work. You have a few options. Sue the child- most teachers wouldnt want to and the child wont have any money. Sue the school - you have an uphill struggle - what could they have done to prevent this happening. Each case is fact specific. What were the risk assessments? Was this an apppropriate placement? If the child had insurance then it might be easier for the teacher to get some compensation. However it would depend on the terms of the insurance- the risk is I suspect that the child's insurers would blame the school and so you would end up suing both. If the school had done all they could at least the teacher could possibly still get some compensation.

This type of insurance may have its place in some circumstances IMO. It would seem that the way it has been sold is perhaps not the most sensitive.

 

Would this not be covered by the school's insurance then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would this not be covered by the school's insurance then?

that would be my point. surely this is more about company insurance than personal insurance. the majority of foster carers are rather annoyed that we are required to take out personal liability insurance for the child in our care when responsibility for that child is with their social worker. we can't take all measures we would like to ensure safety, yet are made to be financially resposnible for the results of this. for example, we have been granted special permission to use reins with our current child, but a foster carer we know with a child of identical age and behaviours except more violent and destructive is not allowed to use them because it would be considered abuse. teachers are not allowed to take certain logical precaustions because of human rights, yet their employer is not responsible for protecting them with insurance (at least to any significant degree)

 

i know the NAS insurance thing is different, as its for parents who ARE responsible for the control and safety of their children, but unless you know you have a potentially violent and destructive child its no more likely that they will cause chaos than an NT child, and is preying on parents who are already financially terrified by the potential need to support their child for a lot longer than was considered before birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is throwing up more questions than answers and I am beginning to wish I hadnt thrown away my forms!! my son is now huge, nearly 14, and regularly assaults his teachers, there was an incident over the summer when he assaulted a member of the public, now I`m thinking what if they sue me? Enid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no difference between someone being injured by a car or a person or indeed an animal. Its about negligence. If you have a large dog and know that it gets frisky around others and decide to take it out without a lead and it then rushes off and knocks someone over causing them injury that person can sue you. (its not quite that stright forward but this is to simplify things)

Would they not be covered by the school insurance- on their public liability insurance? only if the injured person can show that the school had failed to take appropriate steps that it could or should have known. Just because you are injured at work doesnt give you the automatic right to compensation.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is throwing up more questions than answers and I am beginning to wish I hadnt thrown away my forms!! my son is now huge, nearly 14, and regularly assaults his teachers, there was an incident over the summer when he assaulted a member of the public, now I`m thinking what if they sue me? Enid

 

Generally speaking, are parents held accountable, when their children, who are below the age of criminal responsibility commit a crime ? I know politicians are pursuing this idea, but I am sure it hasn't taken effect yet. Surely then, the same applies to violence/aggression displayed by someone who may have a low mental age. I use the word "MAY" as there are many of us who know when we are breaking the law and should not use our condition as an excuse.

 

The other thing that needs to be considered, is that, if anyone knows you have personal liability insurance, they will not think twice about coming after you for compensation. If they know you are not insured, they might not bother or pursue an organisation as in the case of a teacher who claims damages from a school.

 

An adult placement carer, who fosters vulnerable adults in her own home was told not to bother about PLI as she was insured by local Social Services and that if she did take it out, she would be a sitting duck for someone who mighht see her as an easy target and means for making money from compensation.

 

Actually I worded that incorrectly she was "WARNED AGAINST" taking out PLI

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These insurance companies promote unnecessry fear.

 

I have lost count of the number of times I have been encouraged to take out Critical Illnes Insurance . What's more, one of these policies only covers "female cancers". What good is that if I get cancer of the colon - Not a lot !

 

They are in the business of trading on fear and making money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are in the business of trading on fear and making money.

Absolutely. You only have to look at these "Have you been injured in a (badly reconstructed, shouldn't have placed the ladder there whilst balancing on one foot and juggling molten tar :whistle:) trip or fall anywhere that wasn't (erm.... :unsure:) your fault" type adverts and the times they are on the television to see that they are targeting particular people and trying to make money by making others think they can also make money.

 

I am not for one minute saying that there aren't some people who are badly injured through negligence and the law should then be there to protect them, but the more we slide into a compensation culture, the more genuine claims will be grouped with trivial 'I think I can make a quick dollar here' claims and the the real hardships some people space are ignored.

 

We've seen the same thing in the 'trend' to have/seek an autism dx, to say 'I have autistic traits' or to rework autism as an excuse for bad behaviour or even a status symbol. When that happens, the true difficulties faced by autistic individuals are not seen, heard or understood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine that you are a teacher in a special school. An autistic child assaults you and you suffer an injury and are no longer able to work. You have a few options. Sue the child- most teachers wouldnt want to and the child wont have any money. Sue the school - you have an uphill struggle - what could they have done to prevent this happening. Each case is fact specific. What were the risk assessments? Was this an apppropriate placement? If the child had insurance then it might be easier for the teacher to get some compensation. However it would depend on the terms of the insurance- the risk is I suspect that the child's insurers would blame the school and so you would end up suing both. If the school had done all they could at least the teacher could possibly still get some compensation.

This type of insurance may have its place in some circumstances IMO. It would seem that the way it has been sold is perhaps not the most sensitive.

 

I am not an expert on the issue.However I am sure that all empoyers have to have insurance to protect them in case of incidents at work.Surely an incident involving a teacher as you described would be covered either by employer insurance or the teacher would recieve compensation due to an injury at work.

The NAS insurance is for parents and carers to cover them where an incident occured whilst they were responsible for the individual with ASD.That is a very different situation.

Even if I did take out this insurance which I won't I would not be claiming for any occasion where an incident happened at school where others were responsible for Ben.

Incidently Ben broke his arm in the playground at school after only being there a week and he is still in plaster five weeks later.He happened to fall whilst being a teenage lad.He was probably more likely to fall because he has dyspraxia.I would not dream of claiming against the school.I think these things happen.No doubt the insurance people who phone every other day asking if my family have had an accident would have loved to take that case up.That is exactly the reason why schools are reluctant to allow activities that have any element of risk. :wallbash:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat, from a legal point of view, you can only sue someone if there has been negligence.

 

Any parent who is concerned enough to think about taking PLI out is obviously (IMO) not likely to be a negligent parent!

 

If an accident happens that is truely an accident, where all reasonable precautions were taken, and all legislation complied with, no-one can be sued REGARDLESS of the severity of the injuries sustained (there is a separate fund for criminal injury compensation, and most professionals have insurance for "accidental" injury - check out your professional association insurance small print!)

 

As I said, unless you deliberately send out a child you know is likely to cause injury/damage without any supervision/controls, you can not be sucessfully sued. Even if someone was stupid enough to try, they would lose - and your household insurance may well cover any legal costs you have anyway (always worth checking this - many people pay for additional legal costs cover on many insurance policies, when they are already covered!)

 

Plus, civil court actions against individuals are really not worth the effort in "minor" injury cases. Very lengthy, expensive, and they are unlikely to get much compensation since it is often done on how much you can pay, not on a set amount - and lets be honest, if you don't pay, they would have to go back to court to get another order to make you pay, which would cost them even MORE money and time.

 

From a legal perspective, I can not see ANY reason for parents to take out this insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there have been cases in england when people with ASD have been taken to court for injuring someone. One 21 year old man was fined £500 by the court for biting a police officer. One police officer said to me 'autism is no excuse for bad behavior,' so there you go. People do stare, criticize, and refuse to offer assistance in public which may help prevent meltdown. Add individuals are forced to fit into a world not adapted to their needs, so often asd individuals melt down over bright lights, loud music etc. Little progress is being made because you can't change human nature. There will always be judgemental people around and it only changes when they have a close relative of their own with autism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...