UKTC Archive

Re: Time to think - INSURANCE

Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE
From: Jim Quaife
Date: Dec 22 2003 22:25:34
If you employ someone, you are responsible for their EL insurance.  Just
because they may have their own personal insurance protection, or have EL
for anyone working for them, strictly speaking you are still the employer.
You cannot ascribe your legal responsibilities to others.
While working for you their insurance is superfluous.  However, they may
need it for other work they do out of your employ.
If a claim were to be made, your insurers would be in the firing line - the
employees' insurers would pass the claim on like a hot potato.
If it went to Law, the outcome would of course be dependent upon the
idividual case circumstances.  However, if you relied upon the expectation
that you would not bear liability, that stance would be likely to be
considered unreasonable.
The legal responsibility would not be decided by a court in the first
instance on the basis of who was or was not insured.
There is an interesting parallel with PI insurance with LA Officers.  Some
choose to carry their own policy along with the cover provided through the
Council, just in case they are found to be personally responsible.  PI is
not a statutory obligation and to be frank, I'm not sure how policies that
have a potential overlap work.
In general terms, if you insure to a level that is regarded by the
profession as being appropriate, or to a client's requirements, a court is
unlikely to make an award that exceeds your insurance cover.  This is on the
basis that in effect you have acted reasonably.
You will note that the level of cover for EL is sometimes unlimited, but
often £10mill for each event!
Play safe and disregard your employees'  EL insurance - make sure that YOU
are covered.
Jim Q

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: "UK Tree Care" <>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE


I agree with everything you have said but you havnt given me a solid
to the question and a solution to the problem.

If I employ a sub to carry out a fell and remove the law requires that we
both insure the same risk for EL and the same turnover so to speak but if
is a claim it will only be one claim against one of us.  If the law would
decide against whom the claim should proceed that party would insure and
the other
would not need to.

In this example I should test and trust my subs and arrange the cover or
should it be the other way around?

Making a dash for the mince pies


The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre