UKTC Archive

Re: Time to think - INSURANCE

Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE
From: RMArborist
Date: Dec 27 2003 11:32:42
Basic Question:  Is this not but a contract issue?  Every/anyone can contact 
with his carrier to insure anything.  (or, conversely, not insure whatever 
risk/loss.)  Here, on this side of the pond, my carrier writes my 
liability coverage, plus my "errors & omissions" (E&O), and when a  
municipality/university/contractor/etc insists on being listed as an 
insured" my carrier adds him/it (for a fee) and faxes him/it a "certificate 

You guys' discussion of apparent "double coverages" looks realistic to me - 
except if it's really a contract issue, then the parties of the contracts 
change and eliminate anyone not named as a party - thus requiring either 
policies or (cross)indemnification clauses in either the policies or your 

Pardon me for jumping (butting?) in on such an important issue as Insurance 
(as this is my first post to the UKTC list - but I like what I see as to your 
mix of serious/light - and your apparent posture of professionalism).  (And, 
use the word "apparent" not as a slight against any one of you, but merely to 
reflect my own shortness of knowledge, having spoken with only a few of you 
either the Seattle or Montreal ISA Annual Conferences.)

Best of the Holidays to you all,
Ray Morneau
Arboricultural Consultant, SF Bay Area
650.964.7664 = ofc
650.938.1577 = fax
415.412.1127 = cell
"Trees - prominent features of our world!"

12/27/2003 2:34:37 AM PST, writes:

Dear David,
There is no published statement to that effect.  However, I have taken some
time over the last few years to attempt to clarify the matter with the IR
and various employers (not mine!), both large and small.  I have also asked
the legal section of my local authority to pronounce forth.
The actual crux is one of reasonableness.  There are successful mavericks
who are able to wind the legal system around their litle fingers, but the
majority of mere mortals are obliged to play the game within the system.  On
that basis one has to look at the nature of how one derives income.
Anything or anybody that assists you to that effect is a "tool" of your
To draw an analogy with the legal criminal system is improper, but if one
attempts to do a body swerve around responsibility and you fall foul of the
11th commandment ('Thou shall not get caught'), you are not just shown to
have avoided that responsibility, but also to have deliberately attempted to
avoid it.  The improper comparison is with the severlty of a penalty between
pleading guilty and being found guilty having protested innocence.
The bottom line is one that I would turn around from your quite reasonable
question - I would need to see a categorical statement that someone was NOT
an employee before taking the risk.
Who would gain from one being found to have an insurance responsibility and
having no insurance?
Perhaps this disaster with insurance premiums will have a greater number of
benenfits in the long term than is immediately obvious?  Will it "smarten up
the act" by forcing clarification?  One thing is for certain and that is
that it demonstrates that employment insurance is not an isolated issue, but
inextricably linked with all that we do in an effort to earn a living.
It is a cloudy issue.  Surely the primary factor is whether or not you feel
comfortable and protected?
Jim Q
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cheshire" <>
To: "UK Tree Care" <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE
Dear Jim,

re "The use of a sub-contractor as part of your commercial or
gainful activity is employment" - this is the crux of the matter.
Please identify the authority for it.


David Cheshire

Jim Quaife <> wrote:
The use of a sub-contractor as part of your commercial or gainful activity
is employment. It does not matter whether you are personnaly skilled at
particular operation, they are contributing to the profitability of your

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre