New to this game and need liabilities insurance

[Mark Bolam]

If someone is working for you their own PL means Jack.

[Rupe]

Correct, but I think I may have gone off on the wrong foot. Having someone with you is not really relevant when looking at claims to property.

 

It's only really a requirement when a company sends a climber out to work, they then have a duty of care to provide rescue cover to that person. The rescue cover can be a self employed person but they are still not classed as sub contractors and never will be. But that's all a bit irrelevant to this thread. The original poster, Jake, is allowed to climb and work on his own if he wants but does need to make sure any insurance company knows that.

[Rupe]

Hi Rupe...

think it's me that's the pain...I still haven't properly understood the responses above, but just to reply to your last post. I think that I just want to be adequately covered with liability insurance. Insurance for accidental damage would be a bonus, but given the low amount of work/turnover I'm aiming at, I just want to make sure I'm not putting clients in an unreasonable position of risk by doing a job for them. I guess I'd also like to know whether It's legal for me to pay someone unqualified to work as a groundie and how that fits with the whole liability insurance bit.

Re the bona fide bit... when I spoke to arbrisk they used those terms to describe self employed individuals working for me either with there own PL(bona fide) or someone without(non bona fide)

I'm very grateful for your time in responding to this.

cheers

Jake

 

This kind of sums up my issue with insurance companies, they use terms like bona fide but they don't explain what they mean. If they work WITH you then their PL is worthless. They are covered by yours if you have it. But when I say covered I mean covered for any damage to a third person not covered for injury to themselves that you are liable for. If they are working FOR you but on there own (you send them off to do a job) then they could be bona fide sub contractors if they have their own PL.

 

Yes, it is legal for you to pay someone UN qualified to work with you but you are liable for their safety, hence EL insurance which is actually a legal requirement. (If they are helping you make profit then you have a legal duty to look after them and this means not asking them to do things that are not trained to do)

 

As long as their lack of experience/qualifications isn't the cause of any damage to property then kit shouldn't be a factor in any claim but this would depend on the insurance companies small print.

 

For a claim from a third party. i.e. a passing car full of kids gets hit by a falling branch and they sue you for stress, whip lash etc. Then you would be "liable" so you had better have followed industry best practices to the letter. So your unlikely to be covered if your on your own or with someone not qualified.

 

But damage to a client's property would be covered by an accidental damage policy (should be part of most PL policies) but it's not a legal requirement. Most household policies would cover any small damage anyway. You won't get paid of course if you damage something and your reputation is on the line so most and just pay for repairs or fix things themselves if necessary.

 

It's all a bit of a mine field really but as far as being legit it's concerned being honest to clients about what's actually covered or not is better than having cover that s not valid.

[Jake the Fiddler]

This kind of sums up my issue with insurance companies, they use terms like bona fide but they don't explain what they mean. If they work WITH you then their PL is worthless. They are covered by yours if you have it. But when I say covered I mean covered for any damage to a third person not covered for injury to themselves that you are liable for. If they are working FOR you but on there own (you send them off to do a job) then they could be bona fide sub contractors if they have their own PL.

 

Yes, it is legal for you to pay someone UN qualified to work with you but you are liable for their safety, hence EL insurance which is actually a legal requirement. (If they are helping you make profit then you have a legal duty to look after them and this means not asking them to do things that are not trained to do)

 

As long as their lack of experience/qualifications isn't the cause of any damage to property then kit shouldn't be a factor in any claim but this would depend on the insurance companies small print.

 

For a claim from a third party. i.e. a passing car full of kids gets hit by a falling branch and they sue you for stress, whip lash etc. Then you would be "liable" so you had better have followed industry best practices to the letter. So your unlikely to be covered if your on your own or with someone not qualified.

 

But damage to a client's property would be covered by an accidental damage policy (should be part of most PL policies) but it's not a legal requirement. Most household policies would cover any small damage anyway. You won't get paid of course if you damage something and your reputation is on the line so most and just pay for repairs or fix things themselves if necessary.

 

It's all a bit of a mine field really but as far as being legit it's concerned bein g honest to clients about what's actually covered or not is better than having cover that s not valid.

 

much obliged Rupe,

 

so really if I'm climbing and my groundie's not also got his tickets, the PL is a waste of money to me and protects nobody(in which case there are a lot of uninsured tree surgeons out there....round Manchester anyway)....

 

or even more fundamentally, any third party claim made if I'm not following best practice(even if the claim is not a result of the shortfall of best practice....ie an accident.....) is not likely to be valid....

 

It's tricky trying to do this small scale... Think I just like being up trees, even if I don't make much money!....

[Rupe]

Thinking about it, the insurance might be fine, your grounds man is there for your safety so not really relevant to the safety of the public. I think they might look at the competency of how the work was done more than CS units.

 

So any companies around you sending climbers out without rescue cover are more in breach of their employment liability insurance than public liability.

 

But if you have a turnover of 10k then most insurance companies seem to have a minimum turnover bracket of 50k so you would be paying the same premium as someone with a 50k turnover, and getting £1M cover for liability to the public and accidental damage cover that you will never use as the excess is higher than any likely damage, unless you like taking big risks!!

 

I'm not saying don't have insurance, I'm not saying anybody should not have insurance, but just be sure of what it's actually for.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Quot Capita Tot Sensus

[Rich Rule]

So what is the opinion from your head then Kevin?

[Jake the Fiddler]

Thinking about it, the insurance might be fine, your grounds man is there for your safety so not really relevant to the safety of the public. I think they might look at the competency of how the work was done more than CS units.

 

So any companies around you sending climbers out without rescue cover are more in breach of their employment liability insurance than public liability.

 

But if you have a turnover of 10k then most insurance companies seem to have a minimum turnover bracket of 50k so you would be paying the same premium as someone with a 50k turnover, and getting £1M cover for liability to the public and accidental damage cover that you will never use as the excess is higher than any likely damage, unless you like taking big risks!!

 

I'm not saying don't have insurance, I'm not saying anybody should not have insurance, but just be sure of what it's actually for.

 

Your comments have been very useful. I feel much better equipped to have a clear conversation with a few brokers now...

I'm not a big risk taker... quite the opposite... I'm just aware that this is a high risk industry and I'm not experienced. Looks like PL and EL is the way forward(from what I've found out so far EL is not much extra...)

I suspect I'm gonna bore the brokers to tears getting clear on this one but they need to do something to earn their money...

I'm very impressed with this forum.

Cheers

Jake:thumbup:

[MWArb]

Thx guys... Massive help in clarifying insurances :thumbup: