Third party liability

[stewamax]

Having renewed a house contents policy via a broker, I checked the small print. Under third-party liability there was what - to me - is an ambiguous (and salient - given the size of compensation claims these days) clause about what I was not covered for.

It reads:
Liability arising from bodily injury to .... a person other than a domestic employee employed by you...

To my mind this could read either:
a. Liability arising from bodily injury to .... a person, other than a domestic employee [who is] employed by you
or
b. Liability arising from bodily injury to .... a person employed by you, other than a domestic employee

Since a. would exclude any visitor apart from someone I employed (and even then 'employed' is ambiguous; can a self-employed person be 'employed' by me?), I assume b. is intended.

<pedant>
Does anyone else find the clause ambiguous or am I just being a stickler?
</pedant>

[didds]

At best ambiguous in the manner you describe.

At worse meaningless.

Though depending non your viewpoint best and worst could be flipped in those two sentences!

didds

[PinkDalek]

Can you provide the full clauses or point to the Policy online?

One of ours has (extracts only):

1. A. Your Liability to Others

i. Your Liability as Owner or Occupier

We will indemnify you up to the amount insured against any claim for damages which you may become legally liable to pay for an accident occurring during the period of insurance …

2. We do not cover liability:

i. for bodily injury to you or your employees; …

3. C. Your Liability to your Domestic Employees

We will indemnify you up to the amount insured against any claim for damages which you may become legally liable to pay for an accident occurring during the period of insurance which causes bodily injury or disease to your domestic employees arising from the work they are employed to do for you in the United Kingdom ...


So thirds parties covered, you and your employees not covered except for domestic employees.

Pass on your self-employed question but don't genuinely self-employed people have to carry their own insurance risk?

[didds]

Pass on your self-employed question but don't genuinely self-employed people have to carry their own insurance risk?

Maybe Pimlico Plumbers know the answer to that...

didds

[Dod101]

What it is intended to cover is undoubtedly your third party liability to anyone other than a domestic servant employed by you. (Other domestic servants are third parties as far as this clause is concerned) Your responsibility/liability for an employee is quite different. Employer's liability is very different from your liability to others like a visitor or someone walking past in the street and the clause is intended to differentiate between the two.

In the clause you quote, commas are obviously important. Court cases have been won and lost on commas. As you quote it though, I do not see any ambiguity although it maybe depends what the '............' contains.

PD's wording though, is to my mind clearer.

I was in the insurance business and I would be surprised if your wording has not been tested.

Dod

[stewamax]

The broker is Swinton and the wording is boilerplate from their own policies that are underwritten by a range of insurers.

Source
Swinton’s Premier Home Insurance Policy Booklet

Definition of terms

Domestic employee:
Any person directly employed by you to carry out domestic duties relating to your home and gardens. Domestic employee does not include:
• people who are employed to provide medical or nursing care for you or your family; and
• people you employ in connection with your business, trade or profession; or
• anyone that is self-employed and working on a labour only basis

Family:
You and your:
• spouse or domestic partner;
• civil partner;
• children (including adopted and foster children);
• relatives and friends;
• domestic employees;
• any other person not paying for their accommodation;
who permanently live with you


Section 2 – Contents
Benefits that you receive
What we don’t cover you for

Liability arising from:
• bodily injury to:
– you or your family; or
– a person other than a domestic employee employed by you or your family;

My point – which I have already made to Swinton – is that if the (highly probable!) intention is to indemnify the policy-holder against claims made by anyone except someone, other than a domestic employee, that the policy-holder employs, then the unambiguous wording should read:
- a person employed by you or your family unless that person is a domestic employee

It could be argued that since the definition (above) of a domestic employee is (inter alia) someone who works for me, construing their wording as follows:
NOT [Domestic employee AND Employed by you and your family]
is almost a tautology since a domestic employee is by definition employed by me, but it could also be an elaboration to allow (e.g.) my wife to be the employer as well as me.

But my main point is simply that this latter construction absolves Swinton (and hence the underwriter) the insurer from indemnifying me against claims from anyone other than a domestic employee (who – by definition and by elaboration – works for me). So visitors and even Mr Postie can slip on my loose steps or unsalted snow and sue the pants off me and I have no redress.

[PinkDalek]

...
But my main point is simply that this latter construction absolves Swinton (and hence the underwriter) the insurer from indemnifying me against claims from anyone other than a domestic employee (who – by definition and by elaboration – works for me). So visitors and even Mr Postie can slip on my loose steps or unsalted snow and sue the pants off me and I have no redress.

It does seem to read that way but would be interested in Dod's further comments. Edit: Now see your further point but out of time edit wise.

At least you now have the answer on self-employed (working on a labour only basis).

[Dod101]

I have little to add but I am inclined to think that the OP worries too much. Read the paragraph literally and take careful note of the commas. If you are still concerned, of course ring the Insurers but be aware that all that you will get from the person who answers is a parrot like resume of what his screen says. Then ask for his supervisor who may or may not be able to satisfy you.

I cannot add much more. Sorry.

Dod

[stewamax]

Then ask for his supervisor who may or may not be able to satisfy you.

Been there - and the latter was (unsurprisingly) true!