Training Event Insurance

[Quickthorn]

A while ago, I was asked to give a few day's hedgelaying training for a local authority. It was on one of their sites, they were promoting the course, booking people on and taking their money, providing tools; my job was to turn up on each day and teach, for a day rate. It was non-vocational, inexperienced trainees and using only handtools.

 

In this case, who should cover the insurance, me or the local authority?

[Ian Leach]

I would say the local authority they have taken the money off them surely it should be in there price. If it's you surely it would cost you more and therefore your day rate goes up.

[Quickthorn]

That's what I thought, Ian. If they were arranging the course and taking the profit, I would've thought insurance would have been down to them. They didn't see it like that. At the very last minute, they told me they wanted me to carry the insurance can. The extra premium would have been £300..exactly the amount I was being paid to do the training !!

[ukminch]

Depends whether you were employed to do it or providing a sub contract service to them. It's a grey area IMO but they've made it black and white by telling you that they expect you to be insured.

 

I'd just either get them to accept the liability or charge them the extra.

 

It's a bit like getting a climber in for the day. Some will come with insurance that you will pay extra for or some (most) expect to use your insurance.

 

R

[Rupe]

Its not like gettign a climber in for a day at all!! The climber will be on the insurance of whoever is doing the job period! The climber is not "using" anyones insurance.

 

The ones that come with insurance are not worth paying extra for cos the insurance is not valid on someone elses job. Not including full bona fide subcontracting though.

 

With tht eexample above with the council though, it sounds liek they are puttign on a course and employing an instrcutor. They should do a full risk assessment and provide insurance. If the instrcutor is insurign it then he would take all the money and pay the council for the site and any admin costs and take the rest. Its the one who stands to make the profit if all goes well that also has to cover insurance. IMO only of course, councils are peculiar things!!!

[ukminch]

I'd disagree with you there Rupe, or maybe it's just down to how it's phrased.

 

I often get people in to climb for me as my climbing is slow and needs work (catch 22) Most of the time they are covered by my employers liability insurance.

 

However on occassions I have subbed out the 'dismantling' of the tree to a 'climber' this has been confirmed before work started, accordingly they needed their own insurance in case anything went wrong. This would surely be bona fide sub contracting, as they are specifically contracted to do a certain job.

 

Most of the time I'd agree someone with you needs to be convered by your employers/public liability.

 

It would be interesting to see how a case would go. I believe that I'd be fully covered anyway as I do have employers and contractors liability.

 

Agree with what you've said about the council though, the only way I'd have thought he should need insurance is if he's just providing a demo, ie not practical participation.

 

R

[Rupe]

Bona fide sub contracting would be when the climber does the job with his own groundspersons. Therefore he needs public liability and employers liability. He woudl see the job first and quote you for the job and once you agree the price that is the "sub contract". The initial contract being between you and the client. In the event of the job going wrong the client would sue you and you would sue the sub contractor.

 

If the climber comes in and work with your employees of any kind then he cannot be responsible for the overall safety of the job, you are, simples.

 

Another example. You are charging 500 quid to take atree down and clear it all up. You get in a climber to do the climbign work and he gets paid 100 quid. How can someoen who is getting 20% of the money be 100% responsibel for the job?? Its not possible,feasable or moraly correct to expect him to be insured for your job.

 

Not a dig at you mate, just my normal rantings...........

[ukminch]

No thats fine, I like to know if I'm wrong. As you know I used to sub all my treework out as Grounds Maintenance was my thing. Accordingly there was no grey area as I didn't do tree work so it was a definite sub contract.

 

I then went out and did ground tickets and got a chipper etc and any ground level felling or ground level crown lifts I did myself, and got rid of all the stuff.

 

I then had a big row of poplars to be re-topped (should I admit to that......). I got a firm I'd used before to come in and drop them then I did the clean up once it was all on the ground. Bit greyer but I reckon that was still a subbie job?

 

Now I get a climber in when I need it. Normally under my companies insurance, however one of them that I use for more complex dismantles advertises that he comes with his own insurance and lowering kit. As an employer you wouldn't expect people to use there own kit normally so I'd reckon that this is again a subbie job. He will also come and look at the job and give me a price to get all the material safely on the ground, so if it time is not a factor if it takes a day or 2 days I pay the same price. He doesn't get a day rate, would this make a difference?

 

Might be wrong but when I've spoken to my insurer (NFU) they didn't have a black and white answer either. The way they explained it was that they'd expect me to have risk assesments, method statements, copies of qualifications and insurance off subbies and they'd expect me to be doing the above for employees.

 

As for the price example I think thats a bit or a red herring. As when I wasn't doing any tree work I would regularly charge £500-1000 a day and only pay out £250-500 to the subbie.

 

What your saying makes sense to me which is why I do have employers liabilty insurance and 95% of the time I am definitely an employer wrt insurance. When I have my climber in for the day I think he's covered by his own, it specifically states contract climber on the policy. At the end of the day if he's not then mine would cover him anyway that way I don't end up in the poo. I'm not in anyway trying to shirk my responsibilities but I am keen to limit my risk.

 

I guess the only way I'll ever know for sure is if something happens and I get sued and my insurance company deals with his insurance company.

 

Not to mention he's expensive anyway so for most stuff I use cheaper people anyway which are covered by me as they don't have insurance.

 

R

[Rupe]

I have been giving this some thought!!

 

In the first examples I think you are correct, but if you are insured for groundsmaintenance and you completely sub out the tree work-are YOU insured to sub out tree work?? Would you be insured to sub out satelite installation or anything else you chose that you didn't fully understand?

 

In the example in the fourth paragraph above, I think it is still a grey area but I hear what you are saying. The guy is offering a complete service and his own rigging gear and insurance.

 

Whos on the other end of the riggign line?? That person has responsibility for the lowered sections and the climbers safety (not letting run/ swing backs etc). If the guy provided his own groundy then the area is less grey......but, what if his guy is busy lowerign and your guys allow a perosn or car into the work area which gets hit then its your responsibilty agian.

 

Another problem is that you would still need to check all the tickets etc. Anyone can get insurance, that doesn't make it valid. And unless YOU are qualified to carry out all the work, how can you be qualified to check tickets etc?

 

 

Another example: A grounds maintenance company "subs out" a rigging job to me and they clear up. I tell them I'm insured and show them climbing tickets and insurance certificate. I don't show them a rigging ticket or loler tickets because they don't know such things exist and don't ask for them and for the purposes of this example I haven't got them!

 

I damage a load of property and my insurance isn't worth the paper its printed on. The groundmaintenance company try and claim on their insurance and there is no chance cos they shouldn't have been doing that kind of work.

 

Do you see where I am coming from?? I'm not suggesting you have done anything wrong, just made up scenarios.

 

There is very little "grey areas" where insurance companies are concerned. They will or won't pay out, there is no maybe pay outs.

[ukminch]

Yep fully see where your coming from and I don't know the answers, which is what this forum is useful for, as there will always be someone with more experience with me.

 

As for subbing out tree work that's what the insurance company said I needed contractors liability for so hopefully I was covered at the time despite not doing work myself.

 

As for the insured climber, I think I'll leave that as a grey area but make sure my arse is covered by ensuring that my insurance fully covers me!!

 

 

As for the other points you've raised they are very valid.

 

The satelite dish being an interesting one as I do pass on maintenace work across to my other company that I rarely have any physical involvement with, most of the time that company invoices, but occassionally I've put it throught the grounds company but I suppose I know they are both insured so shouldn't have repercussions.

 

I had a health and safety audit of one of my clients (mitie) and it's scary what they reckon you are responsible for. He was suggesting that I am responsible for checking that the garage I use for vehicle servicing should be audited by my company to check they are competent, he also said that as I was a company I had to be careful with what work was carried out at home as I could be in position where I am liable contractors doing their job that I know nothing about. When I asked how I could deal with that he suggested employing someone that knew about that job - It really is a minefield and I won't be doing things 100percent right. I can only show as much diligence as I can and hope for the best.

 

From your last example I would be very surprised if your insurance company managed to get out of a 3rd party claim, rightly or wrongly thats another debate, a bit like the payouts because of points on a licence,dd etc.

 

And that is where from my point of view the contractors liabilty is so important as it should give me 'a cushion' that I have subbed work out. If not well I'll need a JCB to dig me out the sticky stuff!

 

R

 

P.S I've got a few jobs at a site in Weston in about 2 weeks so I'll be stopping at my parents in Stonehouse if you've got any interesting rigging jobs that I can come and watch/help with.

 

PPS I've got my own insurance.............lol