autocoach Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I just went to the Cambrian website after determining that their C61 5 Plank RCH Open would be the most likely candidate for English China Clay 1930-47 Clay wagons. On that website I noticed a new bright red warning: PLEASE NOTE: we are no longer able to supply goods direct to the USA or Canada, as our insurers have advised us that our product liability insurance does not cover these countries. My usual other supplier for kit products when I can't go direct is Kernow. They do not list the C61. I guess I will have task them to order it for me if Cambrian will make some up. I hope this insurance problem is unique to Cambrian not contagious as I have to order directly from small suppliers not easily being able to attend shows like Scaleforum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDuty Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Insane. And I'm speaking as a former P&C underwriter that specialized in Products Liability. The legal climate for Products in the UK is much more ferocious than that of the US. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Afraid not. They are not the only ones. Other otherwise good people are doing the same because of "insurance". One can only assume that their territories they will supply will gradually diminish over time until Surrey is the only county they will will ship to..... One of the reasons I gave up on P4 was shipping issues like this. Of course, it works both ways, some USA small suppliers will not ship to the UK. It's madness. We're all crooks. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted September 24, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 24, 2012 I can understand your frustration, Pete, but it cuts both ways. Many is the time I have wanted to order something from a US supplier which cannot be readily obtained elsewhere only to fall foul of the dreaded statement that they are "Only able to ship to the contiguous US States". Usually citing some sort of "security" issues. If something is considered so much of a risk then why is it sold within the US in the first place? If they don't like air-freighting then why not overland to a port and ship by sea? And if it is shipped interstate within the US then does it fly or go overland? If it flies then where, pray, is the difference in shipping it offshore? Parts of the World are surely going mad. Usually at the expense of most of us and only to the benefit of the higher echelons of the legal profession. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Sorry Gwiwer, I should have said Australia too in my penultimate sentence. Some of them will not even supply Alaska... The fact is we're all very vulnerable to this kind of action put in place by Insurers - no one should feel smug about this. "Where do you live? Too bad! We've had issues in that area....." Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted September 24, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 24, 2012 I suspect its to do with complying with different laws and legal requirements. For example. we used to be able to get Mountain Dew imported from the USA but it has a certain chemical banned by the EU so importers had to stop supplying it. The Version that can be obtained in the UK legally is an energy drink version and to me doesnt taste the same. I now its a little off topic but is sn example of something that is not suitable for consumption in the EU but safe in the USA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I've never tasted the stuff (Morning Dew) - now I'm rather glad I haven't! I think that at the moment it is just one or two insurance companies that are enforcing the NO North American rule. It affects several quality sites which is why I'm not mentioning any other names - they got stuck with a dimwit insurer.... It is not really a good thing to do as the US Government are really hot on things like this from their allies, obviously though, Model Railroads are probably way down on their priorities, right now.... If it does get worse I shall certainly drop a line to the State Department, though. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I first came across this around 30 years ago. That was in relation to equipment used in mines. The hole in the ground type, not the explosive type, I better add. There was a black list originating from the CEO as to what countries we could or could not do business with. It led to deals being done by a company registered in country A on behalf of a company within the same group but registered in country B. Rather more serious than model wagon kits regarding a claim for product liability if anything went wrong. It is easier for insurance companies and various other outfits to say no rather than to try and resolve the problem. That is before you start to look at copyright and security issues. Ask a coach driver if you want to get a shock regarding the cost and scope of public liability insurance cover. The world is indeed going mad. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 So it's perfectly ok for a supplier to ship directly to your Uncle Bob in the home counties who then puts your address on the outside of the box and takes it to the post office to send on to you? What is "product liability insurance" anyway, and how can a plastic kit for a model railway wagon be considered "unsafe"? Utterly bonkers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yes, but lots of us don't have an Uncle Bob left in England and I certainly have no intention of imposing on anyone else (forward shipping is no fun and can lead to a loss of relationships). Some companies can do it easily (I don't have to name them, one of them is named by the OP) and some cannot. I get just as fed up with the US ones who will not ship outside the contiguous USA............ This is the 21st Century after all.......oh, well that explains it.... The real problem is that it is the thin end of the wedge and who knows where it will lead if not stopped. Live in a high rise? No way, etc. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 - and how can a plastic kit for a model railway wagon be considered "unsafe"? Utterly bonkers. Because someone cuts their finger when using a craft knife to remove a part from a sprue, and the manufacturer didn't take sufficient precaution in the design to prevent this. The legal profession (sorry, Horsetan) in their need for more work and riches then assist the poor injured person in getting suitable recompense for the injury and distress they have suffered. Which reminds me, I must sue Makita and Dormer for cutting my finger when the drill slipped yesterday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Wow... some people are really that bad? None of the above would have even crossed my mind, surely it's my responsibility and my responsibility alone. But I guess it's always easier to blame someone else for your own shortcomings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yes, well it is arguable that the so-called "Claim Culture" is now worse in England, whereas it has dropped off in the 'States when Lawyers suddenly realized that they were not been paid...... It really isn't the issue it once was 20 years ago, thankfully. The best thing we can do as a group is to stick together on this. The worse thing you can do is what I saw on another site where a Canadian wrote in blaming it all on the people in the USA! There's absolutely no factual indication that this was true. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted September 24, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 24, 2012 Lets face it when it seems to be legal for lawyers to text me saying about your accident...... which of course I haven't had and if I had I haven't told them. (Smacks to me of obtaining money under false pretences but I am no lawyer), its no wonder that people get worried about being sued. My late father who had worked in insurance all his life admitted to me that in his view the moral standards of the insurance industry had declined and that was twenty five to thirty years ago. Mind you I expect the number of customers trying to defraud them has gone up. Tales of the garage industry inflating car repairs abound etc. Perhaps we get the society we deserve. The trouble is is not the one I want and I feel powerless to change things. Moans about things over back to modelling. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Many years ago a racing cyclist invented a quick release mechanism that worked on a cam to enable a wheel to be changed at the flick of a lever. Now bike frames are fitted with "lawyers lips" to prevent a wheel being easily removed. (Racing cyclists file them off) Back in the 1950s there was a brake advertised as "one finger is enough". Now the instructions state that you must place your hand on the drop part of the handlebar and use all your fingers. I suppose if Sarah Storey had an accident any claim would be invalid. It must be a nightmare for any dealer in old Hornby 0 gauge electric to supply suitable disclaimers. I suppose a blanket not to be used would cover it. Eventually we will have age band warnings as well as minimum age for hobby products in case us old uns can't see the small parts too well. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted September 24, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 24, 2012 This must also be the source of some ebay sellers who say the item is available to "Worldwide - see exceptions" and the exceptions list is many lines long, including all sorts of thoroughly civilised nations as well as many you're not sure you've heard of. France sometimes features. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted September 24, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 24, 2012 Around the time of the 1st Gulf War, a new piece of ancilliary equipment on the WCML failed. It didn't directly affect the operation of the signalling, so was just an operational annoyance. The fault was tracked down to a bit of electronic kit manufactured in the US, so the offending board was returned to the UK firm which installed it, and they set it back to the manufacturer. A few days later I had a call to say that the fault had been traced to a dodgy batch of components and a new one would be sent immediately FOC. (They wanted the order for the next lot we were putting in). Several weeks passed, no sign of the replacement, so I chased up with our suppliers. It turned out that the board was remarkably similar to one in a ground-to-air missile and had been impounded by the US Customs. It was not until someone in authority managed to convince them that I had a legitimate use for it and a number of identical ones were screwed down to railway tracks across the US in places where they could easily be removed by a potential enemy agent that it was returned to us about six months later. Perhaps some clever s** thought that sending electronic kit to a man in Bletchley was a risk to national security. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Can I just point out for the benefit of Jol and any others who may have spotted an opportunity for hilarity, that I don't do personal injury, or anything that involves ambulance-chasing. Oddly enough, insurance - as in professional indemnity insurance - has also been the bane of many humble Firms' lives, so I think many of us in the legal profession are just as bitter as you. I had to close my own Firm down last year because the premiums relative to our earnings were quite unaffordable, and my Firm wasn't the only one affected. Many good small Firms have gone to the wall over the last couple of years because of rocketing PII premiums. In many senses, the profession has itself to blame. Years ago, PII used to be the preserve of the Solicitors' Indemnity Fund, and each Solicitor on the Roll paid into this via the annual Practising Certificate renewal fee. So far, so simple. However, some bright spark (at the Law Society I seem to recall) thought it would be a great idea to open up the "market", such as it was, and turn it over to commercial insurance providers. We were sold this deal on the basis that it would be more competitive, and therefore cheaper for everyone. Not suprisingly the profession more or less sleepwalked into voting for the change. For the first year or so, things were relatively stable. At some point however, and perhaps coinciding with the general global financial crisis / economic downturn, premiums rose sharply. A number of insurance providers (one of them Irish) also pulled out of the market just as a new insurance year was about to begin, leaving Firms that they had covered previously high and dry, and scrabbling around for alternative providers who, not surprisingly, spotting a good opportunity to have them over a barrel, knocked premiums up even further. For those who couldn't find a provider, the Assigned Risks Pool (in effect the Solicitors' Regulation Authority's insurer of last resort) agreed in some cases to provide cover but only for a year. This had a knock-on effect, as commercial insurance providers took the attitude that, if you had been in the ARP, then you were somehow an increased risk and therefore not worth covering. One thing you may also not have realised is that the pain doesn't necessarily end when a Firm ceases practice - if you did conveyancing, as my erstwhile Firm did, then it is a mandatory requirement that you have run-off cover in place for at least the next three years after closure. So I am still paying out even though I work for someone else nowadays. The only run-off I can see is the insurance provider running off with the money. It's not all cakes and ale here, you know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Perhaps you need to advocate (pun intended ) the re-setting up of the Solicitors' Indemnity Fund. To the OP, if you need a hand drop me a PM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Perhaps you need to advocate (pun intended ) the re-setting up of the Solicitors' Indemnity Fund. The SIF is a dead parrot, and there is no will to bring it back. Like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, the trick has gone way out of control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Can I just point out for the benefit of Jol and any others who may have spotted an opportunity for hilarity, that I don't do personal injury, or anything that involves ambulance-chasing. It's not all cakes and ale here, you know. Ivan, you have to take the opportunity for hilarity whenever you see it. Actually, I didn't think that you did ambulance chasing, but saw you as more of a svelte Rumpole of Hendon. Unfortunately, public perception of the legal trade is heavily influenced by personal experience, which usually means conveyancing, wills or, as DonW pointed out, unsolicited offers to handle accidents we haven't had. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_man Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Model Railway Imports in Canada has a good supply of Cambrian Kits and will ship to the USA. Unfortunately once this stock has been sold, replenishment will not be possible unless the insurance/liability issue has been resolved. http://www.modelrailwayimports.com/products.php?CID=14&BID=12&q=&s=5 Steve Model Railway Imports Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDuty Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 This is all down to the claim cultural these days which is so bad these days. This is the reason as one known large firm who supply materials will not supply the USA market as if the brass rod should be 300mm long some people will claim if it is only 299mm long, so they can't get any insurance to cover the goods. Until the claim culture is stamped out it will only get worse. Actually what you describe is not the realm of insurance, it's contract law. It usually wouldn't be a problem here in any case - we don't have a codified "fitness for use" culture as is seen in the UK, it's generally buyer beware unless negligence on the part of the manufacturer or retailer can be shown. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 ...you have to take the opportunity for hilarity whenever you see it..... Yes, well, I'm thinking we should establish a Charlie Hebdo section. That would bring some anarchic fun. .... Rumpole of Hendon..... These days, it's more Rumpled of Hendon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kits from Somerset Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I have to pay more for my insurance so I can send to the USA and Canada because they consider those countries to be a higher risk, and this time they really would have liked a brake down of every state I supply to on top as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.