Insurance ambiguity

[Perkins]

It's that time of year again, and while answering the usual tranche of

questions regarding my turnover, percentage time working over 10metres

etc etc. I encountered conflicting information.

 

One insurance company advised me that if I use bona-fide sub-contractors

carrying their own public liability insurance, that I don't need Employers

liability insurance.

 

A different company stated the exact opposite......that even if the subbie

has insurance, I'm still responsible for them and should get Employers liability

insurance to cover myself (the employer). Apparently the only way around

this is for both me and the subbie to bill the customer directly.

 

Anybody got any experience of this

[skyhuck]

I agree with the second opinion, that has always been my understanding.

[Rich Rule]

I think you need to define the term subbie and do you actually use them?

 

Both statements are correct to an extent. If you send a team out with their own truck, chipper, groundies and saws to do a job that you do not have the time for or not in your area. They are subbies, therefore needing their own PL.

 

If you get someone in to either climb, ground or whatever to go out for the day with you and your guys. This is freelance NOT a sub contractor!!! Then you will need EL ins, and the freelance labour (regardless if they provide their own climbing kit or saws) should be covered by your PL/EL.

 

I am sure Rupe will be along in a while as it is one of his favourite subjects.

 

Off course the Insurance companies will play on the ambiguity of the terms. The get more money in for the extra policies. Try phoning them back and saying you use self employed freelance labour and see what they say..?

 

Good luck. That is my take on it anyway, being one of the freelance labour who carried PL for a number of years and when it was needed it was worthless due to the capacity in which I was working.

[High Scale]

Both statements are correct to an extent. If you send a team out with their own truck, chipper, groundies and saws to do a job that you do not have the time for or not in your area. They are subbies, therefore needing their own PL.

 

But if they are working for you despite you not being there, you would still be responsible for their insurance coverage.

 

 

Rupe?

Edited July 7, 2011 by High Scale

[Rich Rule]

Therein lies the problem. Ambiguity.

 

IMO the only winner is the Insurance companies shareholders.

[High Scale]

Therein lies the problem. Ambiguity.

 

IMO the only winner is the Insurance companies shareholders.

 

Arr, tis right.

[easy-lift guy]

I agree that the Ins co.is trying to make more money. Is there govermental agency available to contact for additional info. Just to keep the Ins. Co's honest, if that is possible!

elg