I was recent asked this question by someone on Facebook – “If a security company tell door staff don’t get involved in fights or problems on the street, as your not insured to do so, how would they stand if they did or didn’t get involved and somebody got hurt?”
Now the question is an interesting one as there are some grey areas in these type of circumstances that even insurance professionals couldn’t answer specifically, but I have put together an answer for this person in the hope that it helps and you can read my answer below.
Thanks for your message and I will try to answer it as best I can and I apologise if this reply is a bit long, but I want to make sure that I cover everything correctly based on what you sent me in your message.
In short, any person has the right under common and statute law to go to another persons assistance in the street, be that to defend another person, make an arrest, restrain someone, etc.
The issue here is the fact that a door supervisor would be acting in an employed capacity and that changes the issue with regards to liability and insurance cover, because any employed person at work (even if they are subcontracted or self-employed) would be expected to follow their employers, policy and apply their employers safe systems of work and safe working practices whilst at work.
I can’t comment on the specifics of the insurance issue as I am not privy to the actual insurance cover in place, so you would need to refer to the employers specific policy on that.
But what I can tell you (post talking to a professional insurance colleague of mine) is that if the fight etc., had nothing to do with the venue that the door supervisor was working at, but the door supervisor chose to intervene as a private citizen, then the employers insurance cover would not cover them as they would be acting outside of their employed role.
If however, the fight was outside a venue and was between two parties that were ejected from a venue by door staff (where a probable duty of care was owed to the persons ejected), then there may possibly be what (insurance companies) refer to as a ‘tenuous link’ (with regards to the issue of insurance cover) that would need to be investigated by the insurance company with a view to what a court would need to consider (in terms of whether the insurance cover extended to those circumstances or not).
I hope that helps and my apologies if it is a bit long winded but I wanted to make sure I gave you the right information based on what you sent me.
Please come back to me if you have any further questions.