馃攳
Professional Indemnity Insurance - Does it Pay Out if You Are Negligent? - YouTube
Channel: unknown
[5]
Hi guys Mark Dawes here and this short
video I want to talk to you about
[8]
professional indemnity insurance. Now in
case you don't know what that is,
[11]
profession deputy insurance is the
insurance cover you have that covers you
[15]
for a claim that's made against you
outside the classroom or the training
[19]
hall, and what I mean by that is let's
say you teach someone something, you show
[22]
them a technique, or you give them
instruction, they go away and implement
[26]
that and there's a death or a fatality
or serious injury or whatever, and they
[31]
make an allegation that you taught them
incorrectly, you gave them bad advice, you
[35]
showed them an unsafe technique. That's
what professional indemnity insurance is
[39]
there to cover you for. Now I've just had
an interesting discussion with a broker
[43]
about this, because as you know I get
involved in lots of little cases, and I
[47]
was involved in one this year where this
was actually brought up, and the question
[52]
I posed the broker was this - if you
knowingly taught something, or you
[57]
knowingly gave advice that you knew to
be incorrect, because there was better
[61]
advice out there or there was new
research new evidence out there, which we
[66]
as trainers ignored and taught something
we shouldn't have taught, does the cover
[72]
still cover us or are we negligent? And
the broker said - basically if you are
[78]
negligent, knowingly negligent, you're
giving advice instruction or information
[83]
to someone, that you know is dangerous
because there is a safer alternative,
[87]
then potentially the the cover won't
cover you, basically they're the
[92]
insurance is null and void. So let me
give an example of what I'm talking
[96]
about here. Well I recently got into a
discussion with someone who called me up
[99]
with some advice, this was about two or
three days ago, and they said Mark
[102]
we're being taught to hold people on the
floor, four or five staff holding someone
[107]
down on the floor. I said okay, what's the
issue, he said well I raised the point
[111]
that there are safer techniques, we could
have them sat down or we could have them
[114]
stood up he said, by the use of more
restrictive techniques, but we were told
[118]
by the training provider that you can't
use restrictive techniques because
[122]
that might cause discomfort harm or pain
therefore you can't use those techniques, you
[125]
can't use anything that may cause pain,
so putting them on the floor is a safer
[130]
alternative, because there's no pain
involved there's only pressure. Now my
[134]
response to that was, okay how many
people do you know have died
[138]
from a restrictive technique in a
upright position. He said well none.
[141]
So I said how many people do you know have
died from be held on the floor with four
[144]
or five staff holding him down, and by
the way if you haven't watched the
[148]
videos yet on 'Seni's Law' this might be a
good time to go to our YouTube channel
[151]
and watch those videos, because the new
law being proposed by Parliament is
[156]
designed to actually stop the excessive
use of force or at least investigate
[160]
transparently any death which results
primarily in a mental health setting
[165]
where excessive use of force is alleged
to be made, and in this case of Seni,
[170]
Olaseni Lewis, 11 police officers held him
down and he died. So they're looking at
[176]
that sort of thing. So I said look,
light of this in light of these cases
[179]
there's a safer alternative. Keep them
sat up, keep them stood up, put a
[185]
restrictive technique on which prevents
them down to the floor, I said, then you
[187]
probably reduce or eliminate the risk of
someone dying. And I also said to him and
[191]
there's equipment you can use out there,
there's handcuffs, there's soft cuffs,
[194]
there's restraint belts, there's safety
pods - nowadays there's a lot of equipment, and
[197]
he said, well the company won't buy the
equipment, they have no budget for the
[200]
equipment, he said we're now being told
we can't use these restrictive
[204]
techniques, so we have to put them on the
floor, and I said well what sort of
[207]
environment is this in. And he said it's
a security, door supervision type
[210]
environment he said, but we're doing lots
of other work in schools and in care
[213]
homes and basically he said, we can't use
the restrictive techniques because if we
[217]
do our accreditation is null and void so
we have to take them to the floor that's
[221]
part of the system we've been trained in.
So I posed this question to the broker.
[226]
And I said we know, I said there's evidence,
research, that people die in certain
[230]
positions, and we know that there are safer positions but people don't want
[234]
to use them I said, because of an opinion
I said, them either or because they they
[239]
don't have the right information or
knowledge. And he said well it is a
[242]
gray area and it will you need to take
legal advice on this, but fundamentally
[247]
if they are knowingly, and there's the
keyword 'knowingly', using a technique that
[252]
increases the risk of harm or death,
where a safer alternative exists,
[257]
he said potentially their insurance
policy is null and void because they're
[261]
acting negatively, possibly illegally
he said, but that's a case for a lawyer to
[265]
pick up on. Now many of you know we we
interviewed lawyers on a regular basis
[269]
it's pilot
program, and those become on that course
[272]
in the past I will come of course in the
future, will have seen the interview we
[275]
did with Michael Mansfield, who if you
don't know Michael Mansfield is one of
[280]
the leading QCs Barristers, Lawyers this
country's ever produced, and I asked him
[284]
the question. I said what happens if
someone is using a technique knowingly
[287]
that they shouldn't be using that increase
of death or someone dies, and he said
[290]
quite you know openly, he said if someone -
is if there are techniques increase the
[295]
risk of death - and if someone is using
those techniques where a safer
[297]
alternative is known to exist, and
someone dies a resolved and not explored
[302]
a safer alternative then that is a
violation of article 2 and we have case
[306]
law that back this up to support this
stuff. So I just wanted to leave that
[309]
with you right now because obviously if
you're teaching or training you need
[313]
insurance cover, but it's really
important to understand that you can get
[316]
insurance cover that's not hard, you can
go to a broker they'll give it to you.
[319]
You can get cover.
But if you are teaching stuff that you
[325]
knowingly shouldn't be teaching, because
there's a safer alternative there, or
[328]
you've been pressurised into using
techniques that you know you shouldn't
[332]
be using when there is a safe
alternative there - either a safer
[334]
technique or equipment - and a serious
injury or God forbid a fatality occurs,
[339]
potentially your insurers could turn
around and say that policy is null and
[344]
void and you are not covered. And that's
your future gone, that's your house gone
[349]
that's your career gone, that's your life
down the pan. Now I don't want to sound
[353]
overdramatic on this stuff but it's a
fact, and that's why we've taken so much
[358]
time and effort to make sure that what
we teach to the people that we train is
[362]
legally defensible and we go to court on
a regular basis to do that, and we
[366]
support people to do that, and if you are
looking to become a trainer - a physical
[370]
intervention or a restraint trainer or
self defense trainer - it's worthwhile
[373]
just considering - with whoever you're
going to train with - whether it's us or
[376]
whether it's someone else - whether or not
what you're being taught and what you're
[381]
being expected to teach is going to be
increasing the risk of injury and
[386]
fatality or reducing it, and whether
you're being taught techniques that you
[390]
know you shouldn't be using because
there is a safer alternative, you need to
[394]
challenge and question that, because you
can go to the broker and get your policy
[398]
no problem at all, but you may find the
if he goes to court and they challenge
[405]
this the insurers may pay out and then
if they finally you be negligent sue
[410]
you for the money back, or they may turn
around and say - do you know what, because
[414]
you were doing something that you
knowingly shouldn't have been doing your
[416]
policy is null and void. Please, please
check your insurance. I'll be interested
[422]
in the comments you have leave a comment
below. It's a really important point, so
[426]
if you are a trainer or you are thinking
of becoming a trainer, please go to your
[432]
broker and find out - that the you know -
how you are covered for what you teach.
[436]
If you have any questions leave a
comment below, drop me an email, I'll happily
[439]
answer them for you. Thanks for listening.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage