PDA

View Full Version : Cost of insurance for bouncy castle


yintsinmerite
29th Nov 2004, 10:55
A friend intended to get a bouncy castle for their kids party. They contacted a few places and managed to get one sorted for 40. Great you may think . . . . but no. They ran into insurance issues as it became clear that castle owner was not fully insured for use in the venue (for some obscure reason like her insurer had not inspected it).

So, off to broker with the question of
How much would it cost to insure a bouncy castle for use, constantly supervised, at a childs party (ages 5 to 8) for 2 hours.



Cost of insurance for castle with owner of castle present - 72
Cost of castle for use without castle owner present, even if owner has trained the person who will supervise the castle - 3150


I was staggered. Is anyone else ?

FunkyMunky
29th Nov 2004, 13:55
I had a bouncy castle at my 6th birthday party ;) Might have been ages ago but now that you quote that price, I appreciate it soooo much more :P

Binoculars
29th Nov 2004, 13:58
The really sad thing is that no, I'm not staggered. :*

eal401
29th Nov 2004, 14:02
Not surprised, because as soon as Little Johnny falls off and bumps his knee, his parents will be screaming for 10,000,000 in compensation for stress and trauma.

timmcat
29th Nov 2004, 14:05
Yep, it can get very expensive if your 'little Jonny' falls off mid bounce........

(I'd get me coat but I forgot it today)

surely not
29th Nov 2004, 14:07
Great response Timmcat :D

Talking from personal experience are we?

tony draper
29th Nov 2004, 14:07
Hire a bouncy A and E dept then.
:rolleyes:

Gainesy
29th Nov 2004, 14:45
Local pub hired a bouncy thing for a kids evening party last year. After kids had gone, well, much later, big chap in bladdered condition climbed to top of edifice and, to resounding cheers, jumped.

Unfortunately, he was so pissed that he jumped in the wrong direction and landed on the grass with a loud crack as his arm broke.

Cue even bigger cheers and ambulance.:)

Grainger
29th Nov 2004, 14:58
Who knows how they work these things out ?

I'm now the proud owner of 100 blank CDs. Twice as many as I need, but fifty CDs were 19.99 and a hundred 22.99. Go figure.

So - if you need some shiny mini-frisbees to go with your bouncy castle, jsut let me know....

airship
29th Nov 2004, 15:26
50 CDs precisely positioned to reflect the sun's rays collectively onto the same point on fore-mentioned bouncy castle should result in farty towers... :8 :(

Mr_Grubby
29th Nov 2004, 16:19
Where's Mr Chips ?

He will know about this.
Typical, just like when I use to work with him, when you need him he is never around.

Clint.

Mr Chips
29th Nov 2004, 16:42
Here I am!

3k for insurance? Rubbish i don't pay that per annum for my own Public Liability Insurance (PLI)

When I hire out a bouncy castle, my insurance, and my liability leave with me. If I have set everything up correctly, shown you the appropriate safety rules and checked all my equipment is in working order, you would find it very difficult to successfully sue me. Some insurance companies offer one off insurance (through the hire company) for around 20

Why do you need the insurance? Seriously? Operate the castle safely, within the guidelines and you shoulod have no problems. Sure, kids get hurt, but those are accidents and will always happen

Unfortunately, he was so pissed that he jumped in the wrong direction and landed on the grass with a loud crack as his arm broke.
He's lucky not to have broken his neck :mad: The pub was also lucky not to damage the castle and get a bill for around 2k to replace a damaged unit (They are not all designed for adults)

If you want any advice (or a quote!!!) PM me... if you have it at homer.. its on your domestic insurance....

Mr Chips
Member of the British Inflatable Hirers Association (No, not inflatable women)

Notso Fantastic
29th Nov 2004, 16:53
Why do you need the insurance? Seriously? Operate the castle safely, within the guidelines and you shoulod have no problems. Sure, kids get hurt, but those are accidents and will always happen

I can't believe you have been living in the western world for the last 10 years! You cannot be serious. The lawyers sprout "where there's blame, there's a claim!"

My astronomy club used to hold fund raising open weekends twice a year. They stopped about 3 years ago when the insurance post 911 became completely prohibitive- people walking around in the dark on observatory sites and using telescopes with no lights! Heavens- we could have been sued to the last penny of each one of us. Sad, but public liability is something nobody can afford to risk now.

Mr Chips
29th Nov 2004, 16:59
Notso I speak as one who operates bouncy castles. I stand by what I said

Jerricho
29th Nov 2004, 17:08
You could always get everybody to sign a waiver before they get on. No waiver, no bouncing :E

flowman
29th Nov 2004, 17:49
You could always put up a sign saying "not to be used for bouncing".
or "no bounces above 10cm"
Seems to work in every other walk of life.
:(

Notso Fantastic
29th Nov 2004, 18:12
Mr. Chips, you may well get away with it. But if anybody gets injured, you may well lose your home and livelihood. People are so willing to sue for anything they can get now.

Ozzy
29th Nov 2004, 18:26
Would the insurance be cheaper if the castle wasn't that bouncy and made of sandstone instead of rubber? And located somewhere in the country?:E

Ozzy

Erwin Schroedinger
29th Nov 2004, 19:31
The cost estimates given herein are all very well.

But has anyone taken inflation into account?

:rolleyes:

airship
29th Nov 2004, 19:37
Erwin, (that's my middlename?!) you're so full of hot air;)

yintsinmerite
29th Nov 2004, 20:07
Mr Chips, I can only quote you what was quoted by the insurance broker and that was 3k+ because it was not to be operated by the owner. In short I got the feeling that someone just didnt want the risk and decided to make it impractical.

If you get it cheaply, then all I can say is you should come up our way - you could make a fortune. As for no insurance, are you mad ? Lawyers would be queueing up in anticipation of a massive payday

airship
29th Nov 2004, 20:40
yintsinmerite, in future, you should just draw up a simple contract inserting the term "all signatories agree that any and all claims will be arbitrated by airship". Davaar can advise on the actual wording required to make it legally binding.

In the example of the bouncy castle, in case of dispute, airship would simply require a return air ticket, accommodation in the nearest 4 star hotel and say, 500 per day. Obviously, all parties would have to share equally in covering these really very reasonable costs (compared to normal litigation). However, in order to test a bouncy castle, I would probably require the services of a suitable assistant like Meg Ryan or Holly Hunter. Unless you could provide a very convincing lookalike. The testing process shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. The test may have to be repeated after a few hours but 2 tests within 24 hours would be sufficient for me to come, to a decision concerning the bouncy castle itself.

I realise that if everyone started using an airship clause, I would probably not be able to keep up after awhile. I may not die leaving much of an inheritance. But if even 10% of cases involve bouncy castles, I shall probably leave this Earth with a smile... :O

Erwin Schroedinger
30th Nov 2004, 06:26
Try to find two other party venues to use the bouncy castle at.

It's always cheaper to insure Third Party.

:rolleyes:

yintsinmerite
30th Nov 2004, 06:53
Airship - its advice like that which keeps me coming back to Jet Blast :p

Anyway, the issue is that finding out that the castle is not insured 2 days before a party (this afternoon in fact) and further more the castle owner was not be be present during its use. That gives no time to find another 'acceptable' venue and little time to find a new bounce supplier.

Its .. . . . . . um . . . . . . eeerm . . . . . nope. The though of Meg Ryan or Holly Hunter on a bouncy thing is just to much. I need a lie down

Feeton Terrafirma
30th Nov 2004, 07:14
I'd put a little sign by the entrance to the property with a statement like:

Entry to this property signifies agreement that all care but no responsibility is accepted by the owners for any and all occurences, incidents or accidents.

Maybe one of the legal eagles can provide better wording, but you get the idea.

Good luck with it.

ChrisVJ
30th Nov 2004, 07:45
I go with Mr Chips.

Don't have insurance, you're probably not worth a lawyer's time.

yintsinmerite
30th Nov 2004, 08:46
Actually, have just heard. Legal advice has been sought and delivered free (does this count as a first?).
Anyway, the rules apparently go along the lines of
1) If parent stays, then child remains the responsibility of the parent so if little Willie does something which hurts little Dickie on the bouncy castle, providing all reasonable steps are taken, the its little Willie's folks who take the rap.

2) If parent does not stay, they are to be asked if they accept that there are risks associated with their sprogs using a castle. If they don't, then the child is denied access. Again, all reasonable steps are taken to control the castle.

So, castle back on again!!

Mr Chips
30th Nov 2004, 23:17
Yawwwnnnnnnn
As for no insurance, are you mad ? Lawyers would be queueing up in anticipation of a massive payday
On what grounds? Only if I fail to brief you, fail to install in accordance with manufacturers reccommendations, install equipment that I know to be faulty. I leave, so does my liability.

There have been deaths on bouncy castles. very sad for all involved, but in each case, clearly in breach of standard guidelines, ergo no liability for the owner.
Mr. Chips, you may well get away with it. But if anybody gets injured, you may well lose your home and livelihood.

Only if I can be held liable. If your child climbs on or over a wall, if your child performs "acrobatics", if your child is not supervised by an adult I am not to blame
If your child bonces into another and hurts himself, thats an accident. If your child lands awkwardly and hurts himself thats an accident. Do I need to go on?

Mr Chips, I can only quote you what was quoted by the insurance broker and that was 3k+ because it was not to be operated by the owner. In short I got the feeling that someone just didnt want the risk and decided to make it impractical.

If you have been quoted 3k for one days insurance on a bouncer you are either correct with the above, or someone is trying to take you for a ride. You can insure a surfboard simulator (far more dangerous) for an entire year for less than 1k.

To anyone having a bouncy castle for a kids party I would say don't worry about insurance. As long as you stick to the guidelines you should be quite safe. Did you take out insurance covering you for giving instructions on games lioke musical bumps and musical chairs? Now that would be YOUR liability

Rollingthunder
30th Nov 2004, 23:28
The Americans and probably most Canadians are rolling on the floor laughing over this thread.

When they pick themselves up, they are sputtering..."What the hell's a bouncy castle?"

yintsinmerite
30th Nov 2004, 23:42
A bouncy castle is kind of a weapon of mass destruction, except its visible :O :D ;) :p :cool: :mad:

Mr chips, that is basicaly what the lawyer said - make it clear whose responsibility is is and your fine. Now as for the premium for cover - I cannot defend it - I just got p*ssed off hearing about it.

" Yes you can have cover, but lets make it impractical"

seems to be the approach.

BTW the party was this afternoon and I am told it passed fine and the only bumps were from kids playing football in the hall - puts it into perspective I feel

Erwin Schroedinger
1st Dec 2004, 06:45
.....the party was this afternoon and I am told it passed fine....
What a let down. Not all it was jumped up to be, then. :(

ORAC
1st Dec 2004, 06:55
An inflated account of the occasion.

yintsinmerite
1st Dec 2004, 08:57
Yes, not as big as it was blown up to be

DishMan
1st Dec 2004, 09:25
Yer all blowin air from what I can see :E

tall and tasty
1st Dec 2004, 09:43
Hi Everyone

The sad thing in this day and age is that everyone if they get injured goes straight to the lawyers as all of you have said in one way or another.

A while back and can't find the relevant article a little boy fell off one of these and landed on his head got serve brain damage and died.

Out come -insurance puts up cover to cover hefty claims

My youngest fell off one about 6 months ago. Hurt his arm but the last thing I though of was to go and make a stink just glad he was ok.

Guess it is a sign of the world we live in. Spent my childhood falling off things and did me no harm :ouch:

I like to think so! :uhoh:

TnT

yintsinmerite
1st Dec 2004, 11:24
Its interesting that at the moment, there are 2 threads running in JB on pretty much similar subjects and almost everyone here condems the practice of sueing at every opportunity, and yet it goes on and on and on. So what do you all think is the reason for this madness. My thoughts are that

Its not 'the nanny state' which strikes me as generally being a reaction to this practice of sueing. i.e. you cannot roll down a hill in Greenwich Park because you may get hurt and the council is then afraid of getting sued

Its not political correctness because as has been established on another thread, political correctness and a litigious society are different things and bluring the distinction does no favours to opponents of either (although it does sell the Daily Mail)

It may be the ambulance chasing lawyers who offer no win, no fee although I suspect that they are just exploiting something which is already failing

Or is it a symptom of a legal system which is in major need of an overhaul to take into account that lawyers are now allowed to ambulance chase ?

I know that JB has a number of legal types lurking - I would be especially interested to hear their views

tall and tasty
1st Dec 2004, 12:37
yintsinmerite

It may just be people are greedy when they see the size of some of the claims and think why not! but remember the lawyers fees

:ouch:

TnT

airship
1st Dec 2004, 13:22
I'd be happy being awarded 30% of just the lawyer's fees...:rolleyes:

Mr Chips
1st Dec 2004, 18:07
A while back and can't find the relevant article a little boy fell off one of these and landed on his head got serve brain damage and died.

From reading the article, at least two basic rules were being broken at the time. Outcome? No liability to the owner whatsoever.

I feel its sad that everyone ASSUMES that there is a possibility of being sued.. and so the wheel keeps turning....

airship
1st Dec 2004, 18:09
All's well that is perpetual...:O

phnuff
1st Dec 2004, 19:16
Well, it seems to me that greed certainly comes into it, but thinking about the way things have changed. 15 years ago before this stupidity appeared in this country, if Johnny Plaintive wanted to sue, he had to pony up some cash in advance which he had the risk of losing if he lost the case. Now, companies offer no win, no fee and so Johnny Plaintive has nothing to make him think twice. If the case is lost then the ambulance chasers absorb the cost, which considering the higher number of case they handle because Johnny Plaintive doesn't think twice, (and the 30% or what ever they cream off from those they win), means we have what appears at that level to be win win. Its only when we see the effects on insurance policies and the way everything dangerous gets banned, that the true cost is seen.

Thats my take anyway