Type of insurance cover for training, survey, tree work?

[Mr Oz]

Hi

Just wondering couple of things

i know you need

P indemnity for Survey/inspection

P liability for tree work etc

E liability for staffing etc.

 

But what if you want to become an instructor and teach climbing etc.what type of insurance do you need for that?

I know cost for ..... this insurance can be different for various reasons but any ideas and input appreciated!

Cheers

[daltontrees]

I have a similar question. Apart from when I am subbing, I only climb for aerial inspections and bat inspections. I have PII cover anyway. My broker has offered PL Insurance for this, and a main client is insisting this be £5M cover. The premia are ridiculous, and I just can't imagine how you could cause harm or damage of £5M while climbing armed with nothing sharper than a pencil. Yes you could knock a hanging branch off and hurt someone if you were a complete idiot, but it just seems like risk aversion by client and insurer. Anybody found a better way to get PL cover? As soon as the policy mentions arb, the premium goes crazy.

 

Sorry Mr Oz I can't imagine what sort of insurance you need for teaching. It's probably akin to ELI, and a broker might be able to clarify this for you. I ahve found Lucetts very helpful, although they can't get round the bonkers PLI premia for surveys only.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

41 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I have a similar question. Apart from when I am subbing, I only climb for aerial inspections and bat inspections. I have PII cover anyway. My broker has offered PL Insurance for this, and a main client is insisting this be £5M cover. The premia are ridiculous, and I just can't imagine how you could cause harm or damage of £5M while climbing armed with nothing sharper than a pencil. Yes you could knock a hanging branch off and hurt someone if you were a complete idiot, but it just seems like risk aversion by client and insurer. Anybody found a better way to get PL cover? As soon as the policy mentions arb, the premium goes crazy.

 

Sorry Mr Oz I can't imagine what sort of insurance you need for teaching. It's probably akin to ELI, and a broker might be able to clarify this for you. I ahve found Lucetts very helpful, although they can't get round the bonkers PLI premia for surveys only.

Sorry it's not an 'answer' but rather a (similarly frustrated) observation.  

 

It's a situation that has been allowed to creep up on us all over the years as a consequence of inadequate intelligence, tick box procedures or 'templating' of previous documents by those with responsibility for issuing ITTs and the willingness, in pursuit of contracts,  of those in this (and other industries) to bend over and accept whatever terms are stated in the ITT regardless of how apparently stupid they appear to be.  

 

Net result - contract costs spiral way beyond where they reasonably ought to be.  

Worst culprit - public sector contracts.  

Consequence - scandalous waste of tax payers money.

 

If there was any sense or accountability for the person issuing the ITT, they should look upon the person that questions the terms of the ITT as a favourable indication of their common sense and professionalism.  

 

"You can have it at this price £X with all your pointless and poorly conceived stipulations, or you can have it at this price £Y with the following, more appropriate inclusions...."  Your choice muppet! 

Edited January 19, 2018 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Jon Heuch]

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I only climb for aerial inspections and bat inspections. I have PII cover anyway. My broker has offered PL Insurance for this, and a main client is insisting this be £5M cover. The premia are ridiculous, and I just can't imagine how you could cause harm or damage of £5M while climbing armed with nothing sharper than a pencil. Yes you could knock a hanging branch off and hurt someone if you were a complete idiot, but it just seems like risk aversion by client and insurer. Anybody found a better way to get PL cover? As soon as the policy mentions arb, the premium goes crazy

Sounds like you need to seek public liability insurance as an ecological consultant.....after all that is what you are doing as a bat inspector. Goggle will give you various options. Won't your tree surgery public liability insurance cover you for aerial inspections?

 

As for what might happen, well there is the person driving a landrover and trailer who landed on the railway line and caused a train accident......the insurance has to cover all trees in all locations & they don't see the numerous low risk situations, only the high risk ones.

[daltontrees]

On 19/01/2018 at 14:42, Jon Heuch said:

Sounds like you need to seek public liability insurance as an ecological consultant.....after all that is what you are doing as a bat inspector. Goggle will give you various options. Won't your tree surgery public liability insurance cover you for aerial inspections?

 

As for what might happen, well there is the person driving a landrover and trailer who landed on the railway line and caused a train accident......the insurance has to cover all trees in all locations & they don't see the numerous low risk situations, only the high risk ones.

Thant's the problem, it is currently covered by my PLI, but the premiums are based on turnover, most of which for me comes from climbing inspections and bat surveys, yet the peremiums don't differentiate between turnover from inspections and turnover from dismantling some 20T Beech over a public road.

 

I'll take up your suggestion and investigate insurance from another sector like eco consultancy.

[daltontrees]

On 19/01/2018 at 12:49, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Sorry it's not an 'answer' but rather a (similarly frustrated) observation.  

 

It's a situation that has been allowed to creep up on us all over the years as a consequence of inadequate intelligence, tick box procedures or 'templating' of previous documents by those with responsibility for issuing ITTs and the willingness, in pursuit of contracts,  of those in this (and other industries) to bend over and accept whatever terms are stated in the ITT regardless of how apparently stupid they appear to be.  

 

Net result - contract costs spiral way beyond where they reasonably ought to be.  

Worst culprit - public sector contracts.  

Consequence - scandalous waste of tax payers money.

 

If there was any sense or accountability for the person issuing the ITT, they should look upon the person that questions the terms of the ITT as a favourable indication of their common sense and professionalism.  

 

"You can have it at this price £X with all your pointless and poorly conceived stipulations, or you can have it at this price £Y with the following, more appropriate inclusions...."  Your choice muppet! 

That's exactly what happened in this case, and I told the public body that my tender woud be cheaper if the insurance requirements were reduced to a realistic and proportionate level. I think they got the point but weren't able to modify the tender at that late stage or accept variant tenders.