PL insurance for a freelance climber/arborist??

[daltontrees]

If you are subcontracting as a climber it is likely that you are covered under the lead contractors insurance. Even though you are self employed the law states it is very likely they need to cover you with Employers Liability Insurance and with this you will fall under their Public Liability Insurance

 

It's not that simple, as recent posts elsewhere suggest.

[Rich Rule]

Just don't call yourself a 'subbie climber'... as the company you are working for will approach their Insurers saying 'blah, blah, blah, subbie this etc'

 

To avoid confusion, use the term Freelance Climber. It has worked for me.

[Tree Surgeon Insurance]

It's not that simple, as recent posts elsewhere suggest.

 

It is this simple. It is BLACK and WHITE. The law of the land dictates this. Not incorrect posts on this site.

 

Simon Wilson

Managing Director

[Dan Curtis]

Just don't call yourself a 'subbie climber'... as the company you are working for will approach their Insurers saying 'blah, blah, blah, subbie this etc'

 

To avoid confusion, use the term Freelance Climber. It has worked for me.

 

[daltontrees]

It is this simple. It is BLACK and WHITE. The law of the land dictates this. Not incorrect posts on this site.

 

Simon Wilson

Managing Director

 

I have to disagree, you used the word 'likely' twice in your posting, that's gambling, not certainty.

 

As far as I know the law of the land says an employer must have EL insurance. Hopefully people on Arbtalk aren't naive enough to accept what they are told on Arbtalk without checking. All you can hope is for arbtalk to point you in the right direction. Arbtalk won't be there in court if it all goes pear-shaped, the law of the land will. I have long ago given up expecting the law of the land to be black and white. It's not and never will be.

[daltontrees]

 

Fair enough but it doesn't really address the question that hangs in the air (like the metaphorical freelance climber with his own power tools in the tree) as to whether you are crucially a labour-only subbie or a bona fide subbie. Really all you have to do is record an understanding with your usual contractor-employerts that you are working for him as a labour-only subbie and that you (i) consider that he will be responsible for providing insurance (PL and EL) for you while you are on site and (ii) that any PL insurance you have ranks second to his as a result.

[Gary Prentice]

Fair enough but it doesn't really address the question that hangs in the air (like the metaphorical freelance climber with his own power tools in the tree) as to whether you are crucially a labour-only subbie or a bona fide subbie. Really all you have to do is record an understanding with your usual contractor-employerts that you are working for him as a labour-only subbie and that you (i) consider that he will be responsible for providing insurance (PL and EL) for you while you are on site and (ii) that any PL insurance you have ranks second to his as a result.

 

Playing devils advocate, has the employer the authority to agree that he will provide the Pl cover? Wouldn't the insurance provider want to wiggle out and say the climber was a bona fide subbie

[Kenty]

Save yourself the worry & cover your backside when freelancing & purchase PL & EL then there are no grey areas.

[felixthelogchopper]

Save yourself the worry & cover your backside when freelancing & purchase PL & EL then there are no grey areas.

 

Totally separate from the PL issues, why would you pay for Employer's Liability insurance if you were freelancing?

[daltontrees]

Playing devils advocate, has the employer the authority to agree that he will provide the Pl cover? Wouldn't the insurance provider want to wiggle out and say the climber was a bona fide subbie

 

A very good point! I was putting the position of the subbie, who would be covered if he had recorded such an understanding as I described. It would alert the employer to the possible dichotomy and that the insurer might take a different view in the event of a claim. But the fundamental thiing I am getting at is not about semantics or who wins or what policies say but it's about communuicating so that everyone knows where they stand instead of whole sections of the industry blundering on in the hope, expectation or misunderstanding that someone else is dealing with the insurance. PL insurance is not compulsory, and does not automatically come with the EL insurance. But not having it is like having a house and not insuring it. It's nuts not to check that ytou aren't covered.

 

I don't think it's hoodwinking anyone for the contractor and subcontractor to reach agreement that even though the subbie uses his own saws and PPE and climbing kit, he is not having the work assigned to him. As long as it is clear that he is there predominantly to provide skilled labour within the contractor's team, that might well fall within the labour-only guidelines. It might not, but surely having the discussion and checking the policy is a beter starting point than not?