Non insured instructor

The whole situation makes multiple alarm bells go off in my head.

Sounds like the pseudo-instructor has some qualms about signing something that says she's not receiving money. Since that's probably incorrect, and may even be fraud.

Look at it this way - she won't accept the liability of the bossy mare on *her* property, but wants you to accept that liability while she teaches lessons at your place. Last time I ran a horse business, boarding was 95% percent overhead and a tiny profit if you were lucky, and free lance teaching without insurance at someone else's barn is 0% overhead and 100% profit.

Tell her politely that your attorney and insurance agent have advised against it; and that you can't accomodate her.

The boarders can either 1.) take lessons with you 2.) haul offsite to their lessons or 3.) move their horses, which, BTW are usually the standard options.

I would agree that it doesn't sound like any good can come out of it. As an insurance agent I would be required to advise against it. If therre is a claim, even with a waiver, you may still be liable.

Why the special accomadations for a trainer you don't seem to have much respect for and a short term boarder?

Great points Maura.

Exactly what I told her when I called her back. (got her voice mail). I said my attorney has advised we do not allow anyone without insurance to teach on the property.

Started out with "What you need is a form that releases *farm name* from any issues resulting from your teaching and states that you are responsible legally and financially should any damage or injury result. Typically it's a form you would get from your attorney or insurance agent."

Not a word back from her. We (husband) and I suspect she is trying to keep these folks under her thumb. As they are short term (IF/WHEN they can get their house sold), I am not overly worried about this issue going very far. In my opinion, if they wanted her to teach, they would be the ones bugging me for concessions.

Nothing special. I am just trying to see if there is a side I am missing. Fresh eyes.

(she is not a trainer by any stretch of the imagination. My husband who always has nice things to say about people - vividly recalls how she kept making excuses for her naughty horse. Oh she was on the track, oh she was on the track).

From what I've ever heard around here (Oregon) waivers don't always amount to much anyway and sometimes the barns are still liable.

My question is why would she herself want to teach lesson w/out being insured? Sure she is teaching a "friend" but I have seen friends turn on each other quite quickly when serious injuries are involved.

So you have a waiver releasing you, and your own insurance will also help you in this type of situation... someone suing you is harder then them turning around and suing her....so really its in her best interest to get insured herself??

Just saying

This is incorrect I think. Waivers generally aren't held up in court. It is correct that the BO's insurance will defend them and not the trainer. The fact that the trainer hasn't insurance will make the owner more vunerable. Especially if the trainer has little or no assets there really wouldn't be anything to win in a suit with the trainer. The BO would by far be the target of the litigation, I would think. This would also have possible implications on the BO's insurabilty in the future. There just seems to be much to lose in this with very little to gain.

It is true there is no such thing as an air tight waiver, contract, etc - ("only worth as much as the paper it is printed on" or "only as good as the attorney you find to take on the case" ) there are not many day to day folks who would take it very far.

We are not handing this woman anything to sign. Per our attorney - we do not want to set ourselves up for any potential loop hole. She is the one who has to present us with any release forms.

True to some degree. If that was the case then I wouldn't make my boarders sign boarding contracts...as you say not worth the paper they're written on

Of course no contract is "air tight" even when written up by a lawyer...someone somewhere will always find a loop hole so to speak, that being said....

When a person signs a contract or waiver, they are less likely to sue someone whom it was written by, but go after the easier target...in this case the "non-insured instructor".

A barn that is insured and that has issued a wavier/contract to someone else is the harder target to go after. It would be much more costly, and time consuming then going after the instructor.....

Would I ever allow anyone to teach lessons on my property that wasn't insured, even w a contract or waiver, no. And my Lawyer to would advise against it.

My point was merely that IMO the person giving the lessons is crazy for teaching lessons uninsured.