Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

Post Reply
jjljks
Posts: 1625
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by jjljks » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:05 am

Surprised there has been no comment on the forum about the recent legal case against Ossett which could become a precedent and threat to grass roots football. The club had taken out insurance which included liability cover as recommended by NPL, however a court ruled this did not apply to damages caused by player on player tackles on the pitch. They are now facing a bill for £19,297.38 damages and £135,000 prosecution legal costs. Their policy only covered defence legal costs.

Ossett are considering an appeal, but if that fails, can you imagine the consequences.
Claims lawyers would ruin many clubs by running campaigns soliciting business like the PPI ads. "Have you had your promising football career cut short by an ill-timed on the pitch tackle? If so you could get up to £20k (subject to our fees)......."

quakersfan
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:26 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by quakersfan » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:20 am

I heard about this on radio 4 yesterday they interviewed the Osset chairman who was livid then the solicitor who sounded like he was out to make a quick fee. Like you mentioned though worrying for grassroots football as it may set an unwelcome precedent. I’m sure DFC will be aware of this case as the company secretary is a lawyer by background I believe.

spen666
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by spen666 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:23 am

This is not a new story.

An employer has always been liable for the acts of his employees in the course of his work. That is a very long established principle.

A prudent employee ensures he has sufficient public liability insurance to cover this.

It was established in 1996 in case of McCord v Swansea City FC and Cornforth, that claims could be brought for injury suffered in a negligent tackle

It appears that Ossett hadn't bothered to take out appropriate insurance to cover themselves for such claims.

There is nothing new or precedent setting in this case.





It was in 1996, that a professional footballer finally won a case for an injury that occurred, during the field of play, as a result of another player’s actions. In McCord v Swansea City FC and Cornforth, the Court held that there was a duty to take such care towards an opponent as was reasonable in all the circumstances. McCord was playing for Stockport County and the defending player, Cornforth, played for Swansea City. Both players went for a “50:50” ball with McCord getting to the ball first. Cornforth arrived a split second later but placed his leg 8 inches above the ball, making contact with Cornforth’s leg. McCord’s leg was so badly broken that he was unable to play football again and his career was brought to an end. The tackle was described as a “dreadful tackle” and “one of the worst that had ever been seen.” The Court held that the challenge was dangerous and a serious mistake/misjudgement. It was not a deliberate act but nevertheless the defender was held liable for negligence because of his misjudged error in challenging for the ball.
https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/hm-insi ... d-players/

Basically Ossett screwed up

lo36789
Posts: 8226
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by lo36789 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:53 am

Yeh...but the other slight issue / aspect of this Ossett used the insurance provider and cover recommended by the league and the FA.

Accountability still sits with them but it definitely isn't that simple.

spen666
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by spen666 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:02 am

lo36789 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:53 am
Yeh...but the other slight issue / aspect of this Ossett used the insurance provider and cover recommended by the league and the FA.

Accountability still sits with them but it definitely isn't that simple.
More fool the club for not checking the policy covered their needs.

What we dont know is what the FA recommendation was & why. It is however the clubs responsibility to ensure the cover is adequate.

Take car insurance.

I may say to you that the minimum cover you need is 3rd party.

If you buy that & then write off your car, it's not my fault you were under insured. I said what minimum you needed was.

This case is not a precedent. No new legal precedents were made. Ossett basically didn't take out enough insurance.

If as you suggest it's the FA's fault, then why aren't Ossett suing the FA for their losses?

Its harsh perhaps on Ossett but they dropped the ball, no one else did.

MB86DFC
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:50 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by MB86DFC » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:32 am

spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:02 am
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:53 am
Yeh...but the other slight issue / aspect of this Ossett used the insurance provider and cover recommended by the league and the FA.

Accountability still sits with them but it definitely isn't that simple.
More fool the club for not checking the policy covered their needs.

What we dont know is what the FA recommendation was & why. It is however the clubs responsibility to ensure the cover is adequate.

Take car insurance.

I may say to you that the minimum cover you need is 3rd party.

If you buy that & then write off your car, it's not my fault you were under insured. I said what minimum you needed was.

This case is not a precedent. No new legal precedents were made. Ossett basically didn't take out enough insurance.

If as you suggest it's the FA's fault, then why aren't Ossett suing the FA for their losses?

Its harsh perhaps on Ossett but they dropped the ball, no one else did.
Spen,

It sounds like Ossett simply had the wrong level of cover, however as a small part time club would it be prohibitively expensive for them to hire legal services to cross check all legals? If so their reliance on FA guidance would on the face of it seem to be fair, could they then have a position to claim damages from the FA's negligent advice?

Also, would the new position on duty to disclose imposed by the Insurance Act 2015 have any relevance here, now that an insured party is not required to disclose every material fact, but instead only present a fair representation of risk?

jjljks
Posts: 1625
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by jjljks » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:33 am

Ossett took out the insurance cover as recommended, but the costs of player-on-player liability was for them prohibitive. The precedent for me, was that Ossett United may be forced to sell their ground and potential bankruptcy (I know Swansea City are still around and that other damages had been awarded in the past). The 'compensation culture' was not around in the 1960's but now it is prevalent.

Part of the evidence is that the referee's report and whether the tackle is deemed to be reckless. Having seen the competency of some of the referees in our league, I would not like to rely on them.

Hope our club takes this case into consideration and the lads are adequately covered, but there are budget constraints.

lo36789
Posts: 8226
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by lo36789 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:15 pm

spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:02 am
Take car insurance.

I may say to you that the minimum cover you need is 3rd party.
If I took advice from you then I concur that I would have been negligent.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by EDJOHNS » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:38 pm

Much closer to home, think it was 1997 Bishop Auckland were sued by a Macclesfield player for a broken leg he did while playing Bish in a cup match.
Bish were ordered to I think 30 grand and had to do a lot of fast money raising to get past it.
That included Manure "repaying a debt" for Bish's actions after the Munich disaster and sending a side to Kingsway for a friendly that had 5000 through the gates.

spen666
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by spen666 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:45 pm

MB86DFC wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:32 am
spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:02 am
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:53 am
Yeh...but the other slight issue / aspect of this Ossett used the insurance provider and cover recommended by the league and the FA.

Accountability still sits with them but it definitely isn't that simple.
More fool the club for not checking the policy covered their needs.

What we dont know is what the FA recommendation was & why. It is however the clubs responsibility to ensure the cover is adequate.

Take car insurance.

I may say to you that the minimum cover you need is 3rd party.

If you buy that & then write off your car, it's not my fault you were under insured. I said what minimum you needed was.

This case is not a precedent. No new legal precedents were made. Ossett basically didn't take out enough insurance.

If as you suggest it's the FA's fault, then why aren't Ossett suing the FA for their losses?

Its harsh perhaps on Ossett but they dropped the ball, no one else did.
Spen,

It sounds like Ossett simply had the wrong level of cover, however as a small part time club would it be prohibitively expensive for them to hire legal services to cross check all legals? If so their reliance on FA guidance would on the face of it seem to be fair, could they then have a position to claim damages from the FA's negligent advice?

Also, would the new position on duty to disclose imposed by the Insurance Act 2015 have any relevance here, now that an insured party is not required to disclose every material fact, but instead only present a fair representation of risk?
Why would you hirea team of lawyers? Do you do that to check your car insurance or house hold insurance covers what you need?

I am afraid I dont follow your reference to the duty of disclosure. Not disclosing something cant extend the policy coverage. The issue here is Ossett didnt takeout sufficient cover

EDJOHNS
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by EDJOHNS » Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:03 pm

spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:45 pm
MB86DFC wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:32 am
spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:02 am
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:53 am
Yeh...but the other slight issue / aspect of this Ossett used the insurance provider and cover recommended by the league and the FA.

Accountability still sits with them but it definitely isn't that simple.
More fool the club for not checking the policy covered their needs.

What we dont know is what the FA recommendation was & why. It is however the clubs responsibility to ensure the cover is adequate.

Take car insurance.

I may say to you that the minimum cover you need is 3rd party.

If you buy that & then write off your car, it's not my fault you were under insured. I said what minimum you needed was.

This case is not a precedent. No new legal precedents were made. Ossett basically didn't take out enough insurance.

If as you suggest it's the FA's fault, then why aren't Ossett suing the FA for their losses?

Its harsh perhaps on Ossett but they dropped the ball, no one else did.
Spen,

It sounds like Ossett simply had the wrong level of cover, however as a small part time club would it be prohibitively expensive for them to hire legal services to cross check all legals? If so their reliance on FA guidance would on the face of it seem to be fair, could they then have a position to claim damages from the FA's negligent advice?

Also, would the new position on duty to disclose imposed by the Insurance Act 2015 have any relevance here, now that an insured party is not required to disclose every material fact, but instead only present a fair representation of risk?
Why would you hirea team of lawyers? Do you do that to check your car insurance or house hold insurance covers what you need?

I am afraid I dont follow your reference to the duty of disclosure. Not disclosing something cant extend the policy coverage. The issue here is Ossett didnt takeout sufficient cover
Very rarely do I bother to comment on things that you post but that last comment really shows your stupidity. You are a solicitor? God help your clients.
Why bother to hire a solicitor when you buy a house? Surely if the estate agent says all is well it must be so?

You clearly have no knowledge whatever of the complexity of running a football club, or indeed, any multi person venture.

BUSHEAD
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by BUSHEAD » Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:51 pm

Dear Spenn’i chat bollocks 24/7’ , you are a scummy dirty rat , I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire .
I hope your cock gets bitten off by an angry beaver & I hope you get hit by a big truck at high speeds.
Always the victim, its never your fault

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4053
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:31 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:03 pm
spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:45 pm
MB86DFC wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:32 am
spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:02 am
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:53 am
Yeh...but the other slight issue / aspect of this Ossett used the insurance provider and cover recommended by the league and the FA.

Accountability still sits with them but it definitely isn't that simple.
More fool the club for not checking the policy covered their needs.

What we dont know is what the FA recommendation was & why. It is however the clubs responsibility to ensure the cover is adequate.

Take car insurance.

I may say to you that the minimum cover you need is 3rd party.

If you buy that & then write off your car, it's not my fault you were under insured. I said what minimum you needed was.

This case is not a precedent. No new legal precedents were made. Ossett basically didn't take out enough insurance.

If as you suggest it's the FA's fault, then why aren't Ossett suing the FA for their losses?

Its harsh perhaps on Ossett but they dropped the ball, no one else did.
Spen,

It sounds like Ossett simply had the wrong level of cover, however as a small part time club would it be prohibitively expensive for them to hire legal services to cross check all legals? If so their reliance on FA guidance would on the face of it seem to be fair, could they then have a position to claim damages from the FA's negligent advice?

Also, would the new position on duty to disclose imposed by the Insurance Act 2015 have any relevance here, now that an insured party is not required to disclose every material fact, but instead only present a fair representation of risk?
Why would you hirea team of lawyers? Do you do that to check your car insurance or house hold insurance covers what you need?

I am afraid I dont follow your reference to the duty of disclosure. Not disclosing something cant extend the policy coverage. The issue here is Ossett didnt takeout sufficient cover
Very rarely do I bother to comment on things that you post but that last comment really shows your stupidity. You are a solicitor? God help your clients.
Why bother to hire a solicitor when you buy a house? Surely if the estate agent says all is well it must be so?

You clearly have no knowledge whatever of the complexity of running a football club, or indeed, any multi person venture.
I'm not one for sticking up for Spen, far from it - but I can see what he's getting at here -- which is Ossett didn't have full cover. jjljks reckons above that the cost of the "player on player" insurance was too much for Ossett, so they didn't have it.

Have I got this right jjljks?
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

jjljks
Posts: 1625
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by jjljks » Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:18 am

Yep, partly the cost of personal liability & also whether an individual player should have their own cover. Do I now need my own insurance for a kick about on Sunday in the park?

Hope we, as a club, check out whether we have enough cover to ensure what happened to Ossett doesn't happen here. Compensation culture could cripple the game, literally.

Can see that the emerging medical evidence of links between heading the ball & dementia could be the next area of concern. FA rules allow headers so would they become liable for damage caused by this?

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1683
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by don'tbuythesun » Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:49 am

Whilst I don't feel as strongly as bushead I do wish Spen would set up his very own forum so that he and polar could discuss all things relevant to the PoD and their seven figure input.

spen666
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by spen666 » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:00 am

jjljks wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:18 am
Yep, partly the cost of personal liability & also whether an individual player should have their own cover. Do I now need my own insurance for a kick about on Sunday in the park?
There seems to be some confusion about the purpose of insurance

If you make a reckless tackle on someone and they suffer injury. They can sue you for negligence. If you have taken out insurance, then this should/ may cover you financially.

If the player who you injured had his own insurance that paid him out, that doesn't stop him claiming against you for your negligence.

Hope we, as a club, check out whether we have enough cover to ensure what happened to Ossett doesn't happen here. Compensation culture could cripple the game, literally.
It could indeed, but the counter argument would be that why should player x not be entitled to compensation for his injury. He would if it happened in any other workplace.

I don't think anyone would have problem with a player being compensated for a deliberate attack, eg deliberately stamping on a player already lying injured.

The difficulty comes where the tackle is "within the course of the game". That is a very difficult thing to decide and courts are moving towards injuries being compensated and deciding an "accidental" injury is not in the course of the game

Can see that the emerging medical evidence of links between heading the ball & dementia could be the next area of concern. FA rules allow headers so would they become liable for damage caused by this?
This opens up a huge can of worms. If a young player starting today suffers dementia attributable to heading the ball, then I think there is a good argument for holding his club(s) and the FA liable. A bit more difficult in the case of an older player or a past player.

You can guarantee this will be litigated at some point in the future

spen666
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by spen666 » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:02 am

BUSHEAD wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:51 pm
Dear Spenn’i chat bollocks 24/7’ , you are a scummy dirty rat , I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire .
I hope your cock gets bitten off by an angry beaver & I hope you get hit by a big truck at high speeds.
Its sad that you get so wound up by someone who doesn't share all your views.

Its not healthy for you to have so much anger and hatred especially when its for someone you have never met

MB86DFC
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:50 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by MB86DFC » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:27 am

spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:45 pm
MB86DFC wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:32 am
spen666 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:02 am
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:53 am
Yeh...but the other slight issue / aspect of this Ossett used the insurance provider and cover recommended by the league and the FA.

Accountability still sits with them but it definitely isn't that simple.
More fool the club for not checking the policy covered their needs.

What we dont know is what the FA recommendation was & why. It is however the clubs responsibility to ensure the cover is adequate.

Take car insurance.

I may say to you that the minimum cover you need is 3rd party.

If you buy that & then write off your car, it's not my fault you were under insured. I said what minimum you needed was.

This case is not a precedent. No new legal precedents were made. Ossett basically didn't take out enough insurance.

If as you suggest it's the FA's fault, then why aren't Ossett suing the FA for their losses?

Its harsh perhaps on Ossett but they dropped the ball, no one else did.
Spen,

It sounds like Ossett simply had the wrong level of cover, however as a small part time club would it be prohibitively expensive for them to hire legal services to cross check all legals? If so their reliance on FA guidance would on the face of it seem to be fair, could they then have a position to claim damages from the FA's negligent advice?

Also, would the new position on duty to disclose imposed by the Insurance Act 2015 have any relevance here, now that an insured party is not required to disclose every material fact, but instead only present a fair representation of risk?
Why would you hirea team of lawyers? Do you do that to check your car insurance or house hold insurance covers what you need?

I am afraid I dont follow your reference to the duty of disclosure. Not disclosing something cant extend the policy coverage. The issue here is Ossett didnt takeout sufficient cover
Obviously not, but there is a difference between a product for general mass consumer use and one for specialised commercial customers. I wouldn't have a specialist check my home insurance, however if I was a layman running an amateur football club which needed insurance of which I was uninformed I don't think it is unreasonable to seek external guidance. The question was, would the FA have any liability for suggesting the policy?

The issue on disclosure is interesting and perhaps valid since the change in requirement from the insured disclosing all material facts to the requirement for any prudent insurer to asses only a fair representation of risk, with the insurer to identify what information they want. So, if Osset said, "we're a football club which engages in footballing activites," did the insurer take this into account and offer them the correct levels of player on player insurance which they didn't take, or were they unaware that they weren't sufficiently covered? As I can't be arsed to read the full case info I'll take others statements that they were informed but didn't take it as a fact. The problem could be if clubs are uninformed on what they need and then get hit with a repeat of this in future.

spen666
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by spen666 » Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:38 am

MB86DFC wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:27 am
...Obviously not, but there is a difference between a product for general mass consumer use and one for specialised commercial customers. I wouldn't have a specialist check my home insurance, however if I was a layman running an amateur football club which needed insurance of which I was uninformed I don't think it is unreasonable to seek external guidance. The question was, would the FA have any liability for suggesting the policy?

Reading yesterday's NLP, the NPL ( sorry for confusing acronyms) says it wrote to all its clubs when advising them of policy telling them it did not cover player to player injuries. They say this was in 3rd sentence of 1st paragraph of the letter.

If this is correct, then the clubs were explicitly told this policy did not cover everything.

The FA were only recommending a policy that covered the club's public liability, not player on player liability

The issue on disclosure is interesting and perhaps valid since the change in requirement from the insured disclosing all material facts to the requirement for any prudent insurer to asses only a fair representation of risk, with the insurer to identify what information they want. So, if Osset said, "we're a football club which engages in footballing activites," did the insurer take this into account and offer them the correct levels of player on player insurance which they didn't take, or were they unaware that they weren't sufficiently covered? As I can't be arsed to read the full case info I'll take others statements that they were informed but didn't take it as a fact. The problem could be if clubs are uninformed on what they need and then get hit with a repeat of this in future.

It is not for an insurer to advise a club if its policy is sufficient for their needs. The insurer tells the club what its policy covers, in the same way your househoold or car insurer does. It is up to the purchaser to ensure the club is sufficiently covered. There is a well known legal doctorine of "caveat emptor" - roughly translating as let the buyer beware.

In the case of insurers, there are strict rules covering providing advice on a policy and if an insurer provided advice it could be in breach of the insurance selling regulations. That is a market for insurance brokers, not insurance companies

The only duty the insurer has here is not to mislead the club. IE If insurer advertises policy as having player to player cover when it doesn't, then insurer would be in breach.

I think there is a misunderstanding of the change in disclosure rules. It does not I believe change the legal duty on the insurer. It does I understand however stop an insurer from refusing to payout on a policy because you had not disclosed a conviction 30 years ago for dropping litter. The aim of the change is to stop an insurer wriggling out of paying a claim on the basis of non disclosure of an irrelevant(to risk) piece of information.








PS There is lots of discussion in NLP yesterday about this over several pages. If I could work out how to post them on here, I would. If anyone wants the articles, then PM me and I will try to send them to you via PM. It may be that I can only send them via email.

User avatar
MKDarlo
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Threat to Ossett United & football itself

Post by MKDarlo » Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:33 pm

Much as I dislike Spen and his posting persona he is spot on here. Ossett didn't have the appropriate level of cover. That is the bottom line.

Post Reply