Granting insurance for non-licenced concerts (like Garth Brooks)

rubadub

Aiken have been claiming they could not get insurance for the Garth Brooks gigs as they did not have a licence yet.

Peter Aiken explained on RTÉ Radio One’s The Business on Saturday that he was uninsured for the shows because insurance companies required a licence before providing cover.

Is there any truth to this? is it a legal issue that they cannot insure, at any premium?

I suspect the insurance companies may have thought it was a big risk, as it was common knowledge that there would be huge objection.

So is it a case that the insurance was really going to be ridiculously high? reflecting his extreme risk and likelihood of cancellation?

Have any other outdoor concerts subject to licence ever gotten insurance?

Victor

I imagine the promoter and insurers would have been looking at the insurance from the start, but final details need to be decided.

Every event would need insurance and it may be a condition of the event licence that insurance be in place.

For public liability insurance, I imagine the insurer will want to see how the council and other agencies assessments of the event during the licensing process, before deciding on the final terms of the policy. The event plan will likely evolve during the licensing process.

There will be other types of insurance relevant, e.g. the promoter might insure the artist, in case the artist is injured or ill and can't play.

rubadub

Victor wrote: »

There will be other types of insurance relevant, e.g. the promoter might insure the artist, in case the artist is injured or ill and can't play.

That's the initial insurance I would expect they would want, the finer details of public liability at the actual gig could come later.

I am thinking of "cancellation insurance" or whatever the term would be, be it him injured, the stadium burning down, not getting the planning permission etc.

I am just wondering if it is a legal issue preventing this, or just too expensive due to the known likelihood of it not being allowed, and therefore the insurance was just too high in this case. Do the likes of marley park gigs get insurance before a licence is granted, since they have not attempted to get a ludicrous amount of gigs in one year and so expect no trouble from residents.

If 1D had only had 2 gigs this year and garth brooks only was looking for 1 in croke park (bringing it to the known agreed/allowed 3 gigs) then would he have been able to get insurance.

I suspect aiken went in saying "can I get insurance on this attempt to get 5 gigs later this year, in case I do not get planning permission, seeing as 1D have used up the quota and I am looking to get 5 more, which is double what ever went before, and on the year there was 4 gigs there was uproar with the residents".

And did the insurance guys just say "are you having a laugh?!?"

Marcusm

I doubt that any insurance company would provide "cancellation" insurance for anything other than an objectively determined matter such as death or illness. Failure to obtain a licence would be a risk which most insurers would be ill capable of assessing and thus loathe to underwrite. This would be especially the case as the person seeking insurance, the promoter, would have a greater understanding of the likelihood and be able to influence the outcome - this would lead to moral hazard risk, eg in the event of slow selling tickets a promoter could fail to aggressively seek a licence and fall back on insurance to pick up the costs.