| Quote: | |  | |
| There's two views on this. Personally I think it's a complete and utter con, and I would never want to take it out. I don't want to go through the arguments again, and I know from the many previous threads - try searching if you're interested - that it's a minority view, but for activities such as you describe there's absolutely no need for it. | |
| | |
Huh?
Crash the bike into other property, you are liable for the damage to the other property.
Hit someone on the head with your skis when walking, you are liable for their resultant ambulance costs.
Real example that actually happened last year:
Child A hit child B when jumping into the swimming pool. Child B went to hospital (but was OK). The ambulance charges of 600.- for transport of child B were claimed by the insurance company of child B from the parent of child A. The parent of child A used his public liability insurance to cover the ambulance charges.
Another example:
You carry skis on your shoulder at the ski slope, turn to speak to someone and the skis whack someone else on the head. The someone else goes to hospital, you are liable for the ambulance charges.
If you have public liability insurance, the insurance covers it.
Another example:
You walk down the road, trip, and fall against a car, smashing the wing mirror.
You public liability insurance covers the damage to the car you hit.
I could go on and on
In this country, where insurance companies DO go after the liable party to recover the costs, it is very wise to ensure you have public liability insurance.