cycling Ireland insurance

wirelessdude01

Does it cover medical expenses incurred during a club spin?

Beasty

It covers medical expenses for injuries sustained due to an accident arising during "sanctioned" training which will include all official club spins

thesimpsons

Beasty wrote: »

It covers medical expenses for injuries sustained due to an accident arising during "sanctioned" training which will include all official club spins

Beasty - what exactly would cover "sanctioned" training. I would consider it any spin whether with the club or an individual training run. what you the experts here think?

Beasty

thesimpsons wrote: »

Beasty - what exactly would cover "sanctioned" training. I would consider it any spin whether with the club or an individual training run. what you the experts here think?

I've seen plenty of people put that forward, including one or two senior individuals within CI. However we a talking insurance here, and I personally would not rely on what is in effect word of mouth. Someone mentioned in another thread they had an e-mail from CI stating they would be covered, and that's the minimum I would be looking for to be assured on the point (it matters little to me as my IVCA insurance will cover me whenever on a bike)

I think they opened a can of worms when they added that word "sanctioned". I would argue it definitely covers regular club spins (ie that have been "sanctioned" by the club). I really cannot see that word being added though if anyone can "sanction" themselves whenever it suits. Hence in my mind there has to be some doubt for anything beyond "official" club spins and other organised events such as sportives.

Of course all this is simply my own take and should not be considered any sort of formal "advice" on the matter (which Boards does not permit)

RobFowl

Sanctioned is a fairly meaningless term in this context tbh...

07Lapierre

RobFowl wrote: »

Sanctioned is a fairly meaningless term in this context tbh...

+1 I'd say it will have to be "Tested" in the real world..that is someone needs to put in a claim for an incident while "Training" (on the way to work) and see what happens.

Beasty

07Lapierre wrote: »

+1 I'd say it will have to be "Tested" in the real world..that is someone needs to put in a claim for an incident while "Training" (on the way to work) and see what happens.

That would not set a precedent though. My own discussions with CI have resulted in some concerns about the way they (as opposed to the insurance company) deal with claims. Ultimately the insurance company could refuse to pay out if it is not in full possession of all relevant facts. I am not convinced they always are (and that is based on a number of observations I have made in connection with both personal and public liability scenarios).

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Sanctioned is a fairly meaningless term in this context tbh...

When it comes to an insurance contract every term is pretty important.

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

When it comes to an insurance contract every term is pretty important.

Its a term with no definition in this context and hasn't been tested legally so split the difference and we'll call it importantly meaningless..

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Its a term with no definition in this context and hasn't been tested legally

This is precisely my point.

One of the main purposes of insurance is to give peace of mind. You don't get that if there is lack of clarity over how and when insurance will be available. The adding of that specific word has caused confusion and lack of clarity - something that I would certainly not want in any insurance product.

Personally, in terms of the personal accident cover offered it's not a major concern to me, but it could be to others. It's unlikely that a test case would arise in connection with a claim for a couple of grand of medical expenses. However the public liability insurance provides cover of over €6million IIRC - it would certainly be conceivable that an insurance company could hold its ground and defend a claim of several million if they feel they can argue a particular commute was not "sanctioned"

Lusk_Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

However the public liability insurance provides cover of over €6million IIRC - it would certainly be conceivable that an insurance company could hold its ground and defend a claim of several million if they feel they can argue a particular commute was not "sanctioned"

Absolutely. They would most certainly do this for such a value with such wording to rely on. They would even defend it even if it were for a much lower and sometimes relatively "paltry" amount. The court or arbitrator (if it ended up there) would probably make a decision based on the definition of "sanctioned" that would be reasonable to be expected. A club spin should fall into that category. A personal spin (commute or specific training spin) could find itself outside of this "accepted" or "reasonable" definition.

07Lapierre

The way I see it, any club members who cycle on their bike, while wearing club kit, are, in effect on a club sanctioned cycle? While wearing club kit (which is registered with CI) the riders are representing their (cycling Ireland affiliated) club. The reason why they are cycling and their destination are irrelevant.

At least that's what I think a sanctioned cycle should be.

RobFowl

07Lapierre wrote: »

The way I see it, any club members who cycle on their bike, while wearing club kit, are, in effect on a club sanctioned cycle? While wearing club kit (which is registered with CI) the riders are representing their (cycling Ireland affiliated) club. The reason why they are cycling and their destination are irrelevant.

At least that's what I think a sanctioned cycle should be.

The term is unfortunately meaningless in that no one is sure what exactly the Insurers mean by it, other than a potential get out clause . I suspect it was put in to exclude unsanctioned races but that's purely my opinion...

07Lapierre

Weepsie wrote: »

I can try if ye want after last week's spill...

Though despite the damage, bills are so far low

Well I would! We're u wearing club kit? I know one other club member who did make a claim with CI and did receive a payout. In fact, I think you would be mad not too.

P.s. How u feeling now?

Beasty

For the routine medical stuff CI can and indeed does "sanction" claims. However that then impacts on future premiums, which are generally based on prior year claims. The insurance company is happy because they increase their premiums to ensure they continue to make a profit

However the real test is likely to come if and when there is a substantial (probably public liability) claim. Premiums cannot be increased to cover the specifics if the claim is so large. In those circumstances CI loses all influence and the insurance company looks in much more detail at the underlying facts to confirm (or otherwise) if the policy covers it

Now the term "sanctioned" is not within the policy itself. It was introduced by CI as part of its explanation of the cover available. I set out below the wording from the personal accident policy

This Insurance shall cover the

Insured Person for Bodily Injury sustained: -

(a) Whilst playing or officiating for the Assured club

(b) Whilst taking part in training organised by the Assured club

(c) Whilst travelling directly to/from away fixtures as part of an organised party under the auspices of the Assured club

You will see it's geared more towards team sports which leaves more scope for "interpretation" - however the term "sanctioned" is essentially referring to the "training organised by the Assured club"

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

Now the term "sanctioned" is not within the policy itself.

Does that mean its not important now

Beasty wrote: »

When it comes to an insurance contract every term is pretty important.

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Does that mean its not important now

No it does not

It is very important because it's part of the information relayed by CI summarising cover. If the insurers do not pay up because they do not accept the term "sanctioned" the member could almost certainly still rely on it should they decide to pursue CI

However you will note the wording of the policy itself arguably has the same meaning - it must be training organised (or "sanctioned") by the club

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

No it does not

It is very important because it's part of the information relayed by CI summarising cover. If the insurers do not pay up because they do not accept the term "sanctioned" the member could almost certainly still rely on it should they decide to pursue CI

However you will note the wording of the policy itself arguably has the same meaning - it must be training organised (or "sanctioned") by the club

Organised training is far clearer a term. Effectively it gives the riders club the power to decide what they consider organised training.

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Organised training is far clearer a term. Effectively it gives the riders club the power to decide what they consider organised training.

It pretty clearly does not cover an individual commuting to work (but I would contend "sanctioned" training would not either). So far as I am concerned the terms "organised" and "sanctioned" are pretty much interchangeable in the circumstances (and certainly in the eyes of CI who I've already alluded have some influence over what gets paid out)

RobFowl

Clearly is the wrong term to use there. IMO would be more accurate.

That said the term sanctioned was the issue and now seems to be something not actually in the policy at all so honestly not sure what your point is now...

Anyway off to bed now

Lusk_Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

For the routine medical stuff CI can and indeed does "sanction" claims. However that then impacts on future premiums, which are generally based on prior year claims. The insurance company is happy because they increase their premiums to ensure they continue to make a profit

However the real test is likely to come if and when there is a substantial (probably public liability) claim. Premiums cannot be increased to cover the specifics if the claim is so large. In those circumstances CI loses all influence and the insurance company looks in much more detail at the underlying facts to confirm (or otherwise) if the policy covers it

Now the term "sanctioned" is not within the policy itself. It was introduced by CI as part of its explanation of the cover available. I set out below the wording from the personal accident policy
You will see it's geared more towards team sports which leaves more scope for "interpretation" - however the term "sanctioned" is essentially referring to the "training organised by the Assured club"

If that is the wording of the policy then it is a clear example of a failure by the insurance company to ensure that the product is suitable for the consumer. I've seen a few of claims end up rejected due to no cover only for it to turn out that the incorrect policy was sold or incorrect advice was given by an intermediary and the injured party, or loss sufferer, ended up with a settlement ultimately as a result of this. That wording strikes me as rendering the policy fairly useless in that regard. I'd be interested in seeing the proposal forms but that will never happen.

ItsLikeThis

So as an un-attached leisure member, it looks like my insurance is only for sanctioned events and not the training?

RobFowl

ItsLikeThis wrote: »

So as an un-attached leisure member, it looks like my insurance is only for sanctioned events and not the training?

It probably covers training though precisely what that entails is not clear. It does not claim to cover commuting.

Dilbert75

RobFowl wrote: »

It probably covers training though precisely what that entails is not clear. It does not claim to cover commuting.

A guy from CI told me, at the Cycle Against Suicide last year, that cover for training effectively comes down to whether or not the rider was wearing Lycra at the time. So commuting to work or the shops is out but if you're in your cycling gear you're covered. Again it's word of mouth but it makes sense.

G1032

After reading this thread I decided to contact CI myself to get some clarification on when exactly I'm insured while on the bike.
I'm not a member of a club and have a leisure licence.

This is the reply I got when I queried what 'official sanctioned training' was and whether I could call a solo spin 'official sanctioned training '
I told them in the email that I was not attached to any club.

'Once you are on the bike it is classed as training. If you are riding alone, you have sanctioned it yourself'

Not entirely sure if this adds anything new to this thread but I'll post it in any case

RobFowl

Great post and God I love this country

ItsLikeThis

G1032 wrote: »

After reading this thread I decided to contact CI myself to get some clarification on when exactly I'm insured while on the bike.
I'm not a member of a club and have a leisure licence.

This is the reply I got when I queried what 'official sanctioned training' was and whether I could call a solo spin 'official sanctioned training '
I told them in the email that I was not attached to any club.

'Once you are on the bike it is classed as training. If you are riding alone, you have sanctioned it yourself'

Not entirely sure if this adds anything new to this thread but I'll post it in any case

I got the same reply today regarding unattached cyclists

Mercian Pro

Dilbert75 wrote: »

A guy from CI told me, at the Cycle Against Suicide last year, that cover for training effectively comes down to whether or not the rider was wearing Lycra at the time. So commuting to work or the shops is out but if you're in your cycling gear you're covered. Again it's word of mouth but it makes sense.

Would have let this go were it not for your last line Of course it doesn't make sense, no more than an earlier refererence to being in club gear. The only thing that would make sense is absolute written clarity from CI and their insurers as to what is covered and what is not. Otherwise we are in an Irish solution to an Irish problem territory.

Dilbert75

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Would have let this go were it not for your last line Of course it doesn't make sense, no more than an earlier refererence to being in club gear. The only thing that would make sense is absolute written clarity from CI and their insurers as to what is covered and what is not. Otherwise we are in an Irish solution to an Irish problem territory.

Obviously I meant the logic makes sense, not the fact that it was only a verbal assertion rather than a written assurance.

Mercian Pro

Dilbert75 wrote: »

Obviously I meant the logic makes sense, not the fact that it was only a verbal assertion rather than a written assurance.

So how much Lycra do you need to be wearing to be insured and where? Would an armband do?

A former colleague of mine who never trained or competed in his life was seriously into Lycra cycling gear (to a worrying extent). At least he would have been covered (!!) if he slipped in the supermarket according to your CI guy.

As you can see Dilbert, I remain to be convinced by his lazy approach to a serious issue. Hopefully I won't have to call on my CI insurance any day soon.

ItsLikeThis

Anyone know if CI insurance covers you cycling in other european countries?

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

(it matters little to me as my IVCA insurance will cover me whenever on a bike)

Heard this the other day, a great policy as far as I can tell.

[QUOTE=Dilbert75;98723141that cover for training effectively comes down to whether or not the rider was wearing Lycra at the time. [/QUOTE] I wear lycra on spins to work and the shops. There are people in my building, who, IMO oddly, never take their lycra off.

ItsLikeThis wrote: »

Anyone know if CI insurance covers you cycling in other european countries?

I know I was covered for Audax stuff abroad, but I had to notify CI before the event, as for racing I think there is a bit more to it.

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

Heard this the other day, a great policy as far as I can tell.

Only point I would mention is it's only personal accident, not public liability (although that should be covered by the IVCA's own insurance when participating in their events including racing and the likes of the WW200)

CramCycle wrote: »

I know I was covered for Audax stuff abroad, but I had to notify CI before the event, as for racing I think there is a bit more to it.

UCI events (which should extend to all UCI registered federations and their affiliated clubs) are covered, but again you are required to notify CI first and get a letter from them confirming cover (although I have never been asked for it when racing at the Track masters events)

Events put on outside the UCI umbrella (such as the LVRC Omnium championships I recently took part in over in the UK) are not covered - in that case I have LVRC cover (the LVRC is the UK equivalent to the IVCA)

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

UCI events (which should extend to all UCI registered federations and their affiliated clubs) are covered, but again you are required to notify CI first and get a letter from them confirming cover (although I have never been asked for it when racing at the Track masters events

Events put on outside the UCI umbrella (such as the LVRC Omnium championships I recently took part in over in the UK) are not covered - in that case I have LVRC cover (the LVRC is the UK equivalent to the IVCA)

I got cover for Audax events abroad which would not have been UCI events, but maybe because its a leisure event, it wasn't an issue. Or at least an e-mail stating that I was covered.