Public Liability Insurance

Please could someone explain the rational behind asking camps to have their own public liability insurance? I'm not aware of any other burns that have this requirement.

yes, I haven't seen anything mentioned and I do read the comms :-p

Please see my reply below. There’s been a lot of misunderstanding here. I’ve apologised for poor comms below.

There is however a rational reason I didn’t just decide on a whim that this seemed like a good idea.

The below is taken from the theme camp FAQ, which Edge of Chaos supplied. It is essentially to make sure our arses are totally covered, as far as I understand. If the below answer isn't satisfactory or detailed enough I would suggest getting touch with EOC directly - [email protected]

'"Of course we would like for everything to be fun, happy and smooth. We also need to be prepared. The terms of Burning Nest’s insurance requires ‘external contractors/stall holders’ to hold their own Public Liability Insurance (PLI). While theme camps are neither contracted by nest or technically ‘stall holders’, in order to ensure our insurance covers us indisputably, all camps are required to acquire independent PLI cover."

By requiring theme camps and artists to have their own insurance, you are implying that they are external contractors. As such, why do they have to buy memberships?If the inland revenue saw that these participants were treated as external contractors, they could challenge the Nest is actually a mutually trading members' only organisation.
Has professional tax advice been taken before going down this route?

I have replied below about this x

Hi guys,

Sam here, EOC link.
I apologise I’ve just been made aware of this thread or I would have replied much sooner. Let me clear up this confusion/reasoning behind this policy. Once it’s clear what this is about, happy to take feedback or alternative solutions.

First of all Artist’s 100% DO NOT need to hold their own PLI. That is all covered by Nest’s public liability insurance. As are most activities on site. No one bringing art to Nest has any reason to be concerned about this additional cost. It simply isn’t about you guys.

Theme camp’s bringing THEIR OWN structures do need to hold their own PLI. I realise this isn’t ideal but our insurer is refusing to insure for any structures which are not directly owned by Nest and any structures on site which don’t have insurance invalidate our entire insurance policy for the event. Hence why I have asked camp’s to cover themselves for a small additional cost.

As you mentioned Hilda is they are treating camps as external contractors. No amount of me explaining to them that this is not the case has changed their position on this. It is not easy to insure an event like Nest because insurers just don’t understand the nuance of what a Burn is.

I’m sorry this could have been communicated more clearly and I will send out a clarification in comms. Sometimes with volunteer organisations doing lots of things wires get crossed or I rush my comms! I hope this clears up the questions above. Happy to reply to further inquiries

Thanks Sam, I've edited the subject text to reflect your message.

Cool maybe make clear that it didn’t say that before. Just so people know it’s edited

Thank you Sam for the detailed response. You won't be surprised that it raises more questions.

You say "any structures which are not directly owned by Nest" should be insured.

What is the definition of a structure?
Why isn't art deemed to be a 'structure' (not all art installations receive art grants after all so not all art is owned by Nest)?
How will a theme camp know if what it is bringing is a structure?
What about free campers bringing 'structures'?

In summary, how are theme camps and others supposed to find out if they require insurance?

And note, the website currently says that artists DO require insurance but there's nothing on the theme camps page about it.

As mentioned above I will be clarifying this in comms To theme camps once I’ve confirmed with the insurance company what they define as ‘structures’

The reason that art doesn’t count as a ‘structure’ is because the insurance company have simply requested pictures of any built art on site and are not defining built art as a ‘structure’. That’s their definition not mine. I’m just doing what’s legally required to adhere to the contract not arguing what they’re saying makes sense!

They are More concerned for some reason with the concept of theme camps and them bringing their own ‘structures’ again I will clarify as I can’t remember exactly what their definition was. I know there was a size component but not going to speculate until I’ve checked the document. Obviously a bell tent isn’t a ‘structure’ and a geodesic dome is. There is a line somewhere that’s legally defined by the insurance broker.

As I also mentioned above I would argue that theme camps are not external contractors. But in response to that the insurance company said in this case, we would then have to employ a third party contractor to erect the structures for us even though camps may own them themselves!!! Obviously this would be ridiculous.

I’m trying to jump through hoops here and get a workable solution. I appreciate this isn’t ideal but I also think that a small fee that can be built into a camp budget with plenty of notice isn’t an enormous challenge and does away with the challenges being created by the Insurance company here.

In summary, camps will know if they need insurance because I will clarify the requirements for said insurance based on the contractual requirements of our Public Liability Insurance Policy. This will be done via comms and also in the communication I have with all camps following receipt of their applications. Free campers intending to put up a large structure (like for example deadly whiteshade) we would be aware of through placement decisions and therefore would also be able to chat to about a solution.

As for the website I did not put that information on there it wilL be amended.

I appreciate you don't have all the info yet and that this is a nightmare for you. I look forward to seeing a clearer definition.

Why is a bell tent definitely not a structure while a dome definitely is? The Cwtch bell tent at Microburn is several times the size of some of the small domes used at Nowhere for example.

What if a theme camp labels their structure as 'art' and you take a photo of it? There's a lot of crossover. I'm still totally unclear what a 'structure' actually is.

And how are you hoping to know in advance who is bringing what to freecamp? Are you going to ask every freecamper?

Perhaps asking the obvious, but have you contacted an insurance broker or had any other quotes? Eg the firm that insures Microburn or London Decompression might offer a more sensible arrangement.
Happy to provide their contact details if you'd like?

I would be more than happy to try a different company and see what they say. But I have been in this role for Burning Nest for a few years and do know what I’m doing when procuring this stuff. I use a specialist event broker that goes to multiple companies. But if there is an easier solution here I’m open to it. The last two years this hasn’t been an issue. This year it is. It’s also the first year Shambala are asking independent crews to hold their own PLI. Not sure if that’s the same issue or a coincidence

If you email me the details for micro-burn/decom insurer It could be good to make an inquiry with them to see if it offers a simpler solution @: [email protected]

However if it doesn’t then is there a reason asking camps to hold their own PLI for a (well defined ;)) definition of structure Is a major problem? It’s not so different to asking camps to rent fire extinguishers etc. It covers them and us from an insurance perspective? It costs between 25-50 pound for a full year. Yes it’s a new thing that hasn’t been done previously but guaranteed if we aim to increase capacity and license the event fully next year there will be all sorts of similar new impositions. That’s how the UK event world is. I’m just a bit surprised this seems so controversial.

Although I do appreciate that the communication hasn’t been good thus far I have every intention to rectify that!

I'll shoulder part of the blame for comms. The PLI is mentioned in the FAQs that are linked to from the theme camp application form (which I'm guessing some people read due to this thread being here) but as it was a New Thing it probably should have been more explicitly communicated in the theme camp comms. Have edited the intro of the application form so it makes it a bit clearer from the outset for future applicants. Like Sam, I kind of categorised this in the same group as fire extinguishers, a not overly onerous imposition when considering all the costs a camp brings.

Nick we’ll have a chat and I’ll write some copy to make it as clear as possible for camps.

I'd just like to add (with my Flamin' Merkin hat on) that I'd be happy to pay the small cost of PLI if it means that I can be part of a wonderful Burn that gives so much joy to a community of my favourite people. It's a no-brainer ❤️