Compensation Culture

This blog first appeared as an article in Arts Professional magazine. It should not be copied without prior consent.

Abigail Cheverst’s recent article, ‘A world gone mad’, (AP183) argued that our risk-averse culture, fuelled by a scare-mongering press, was a driver for the misapplication of risk assessment. She had a good point but she should ultimately blame insurance companies and their clever clauses, which constrain the policy holder until action, quality of life and healthy risk are quashed. ‘Compensation culture’ is now the bed-fellow of the insurance claim. But is it largely myth-driven? Litigation does not occur as often as we might fear, but it occurs often enough to condition our actions disproportionately. As observers, we expect greed, cowardly capitulation or obstruction from plaintiffs.
Love a duck
An annual duck race was canceled because the organisers could not manage the costs of, amongst other things, fencing off the stream. The reason given by the organisers and press for the cancellation was risk-averse, barmy health and safety (H&S). I suggest the reason Abigail Cheverst might give would be the misapplication of a risk-assessment. However I believe that the real impetus behind both given reasons was the fear of litigation. This fear is fueled by the insurance company’s desire to safeguard against any mishap obliging them to pay-out. To avoid this, the insurance company sets clauses of such severity as to close the event. Let me make a vital modification to my argument: the reason why sensible event organisers have not resolved these H&S vexations is that, even if it could succeed against grim litigation culture, it has no defence against the specific insurance clause. Failing to adhere to a clause would render the organisers, to blame. Blame is enshrined in our laws and supported by our adversarial legal system.

“There is much emotional timidity but little informed debate about what ‘insurance’ means.”

Playing with fire
Does the string of problems from barmy H&S, through risk aversion, risk assessment, compensation culture and insurance clauses to blame, end up back again at barmy H&S? Yes. At a park, we wanted our Maypole dancers to arrive from the boating lake. “We don’t want them to arrive by boat in case something happens,” said the council, but would not say what that ‘something’ might be. It was slightly Kafka-esque. Genuine concern for health and safety was not an issue, but common sense could not prevail against the fear that litigation, frivolous or not, may uncover an insurance clause which went unheeded. A performer friend has insurance to eat fire which states that he must keep his equipment in a locked metal case. But his equipment is metal brands with asbestos-substitute wicks which are inflammable without paraffin. His puppets are more flammable. Obtaining a metal case has proved unfeasible. An old heavy gun-cartridge case fell apart, flight case padding soaks up paraffin and keeping track of keys with costume-changes and street-performance is a nightmare. The phrase ‘metal case’ is easily said but the object is harder to find. The box is impractical and contributes nothing to safety that he can see, so he uses a bucket. But should he tell a booker that he cannot perform because he is ‘uninsured’? Is he uninsured? Let’s say that the fire eater does his fire-eating act and sets a member of the public on fire. Will the insurance company not pay up even though the absence of a metal box was not material to the case? A booker could not risk it. They must say no to anything proscribed by the policy. But let us probe deeper. What exactly are we insuring against? This is not America; if you don’t have ‘insurance’ here, the ambulance will still take you to hospital. There is much emotional timidity but little informed debate about what ‘insurance’ means.

Package deal
My point is that I suspect that many colleagues don’t know if insurance is invalidated or not if certain clauses are not adhered to, nor are they articulate about what insurance is actually for. And that brings me to my next point: we limit activity, trusting that that protects us; but how protected are we if we miss something out? Because, for the insurance company to avoid paying out, it needs to write clauses that minimise – or do I mean eradicate? – risk of harm. But if something goes wrong, then something has not gone to plan, and that usually means the clauses have not been adhered to. That should mean no pay-out and thus the policy was a waste of time.

We were given funding to buy computers by the Arts Council England (ACE), which said we must upgrade our alarm and insurance. Soon, the cost of the insurance and burglar alarm equal the cost of the computers. But, you say, the insurance is in case something happens. What? What could go wrong? The house could burn down? How many buildings do you know of gutted by fire and all the computers destroyed? The computers depreciate so by now they are only worth a fraction of their purchase price. We will never get the value back unless the insurance pays for full replacement. But, as I say, the chance of a complete write-off is far less likely than what happens in real life: computers get slow, out of date, get viruses or lose data; none of which is covered by the policy. When the printer breaks or, as we found, our graphics tablets didn’t work properly, did we claim? No of course not: we abandoned the tablets. When a printer conks out we pop off to Dixons for a cheap replacement because it is urgent, and we would lose our no-claims bonus. One day I forgot to switch on the alarm and lock the door. The laptop was stolen. The clauses said that the door had to be locked and the alarm on. But that was exactly why it got stolen – because those conditions were not met! So what use was the insurance if it is not there when you need it – for life’s little accidents? And – hold on – that laptop was a replacement one we bought when the ACE one became faulty, so it wasn’t even part of the original insurance package! Boo-hoo!

Bill Brookman runs Bill Brookman Productions, a street arts company
www.billbrookman.co.uk
bill@billbrookman.co.uk