=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 8, no. 32 (25 March 2003) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Business matters [4hu] Public liability insurance =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[4]-- Business matters --------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 March 2003 From: Judyth Mermelstein, espresso@e-scape.net Kim Yarwood wrote: > My local business advisor has just recommended that I, as a > sole trader, take out some form of public liability insurance > 'just in case a client trips over a manuscript or pile of page- > proofs'. Is this really necessary? Is there a different, more > relevant insurance package that I should consider? Actually, if you work at home you would normally be covered for something like that under your "homeowner's" or "tenant's package" policy, or under a "small business" or "home office" rider added to it. Here in Canada I can get coverage on my equipment, personal belongings, etc. plus $1 million in public liability for about $250 CDN by accepting a $1,000 deductible on my home-office policy. Talk to a good insurance broker about what is normally available and any special terms you might need ... like the value of "property of others" for manuscripts, business interruption coverage in case of fire or flood, etc. The name of the type of policy isn't always the best guide to what it does or can cover. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: Helen Birkbeck, HelenBirkbeck@ukgateway.net Steve Rickaby wrote: > even a one-person company, that does not have public liability > insurance, is committing an offence. I'm not sure whether this > applies to sole traders, however. The recent messages about insurance have really alarmed me. I am a sole trader, earning less than GBP10,000 a year so far, and clients visit my office (upstairs, with cats!) about twice in a year. I am now very confused about what to do. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: Steve Rickaby, srickaby@wordmongers.demon.co.uk Helen Birkbeck wrote: > The recent messages about insurance have really alarmed me. ... > I am now very confused about what to do. As the confusion probably started with me, I've made some enquiries. Firstly, I was incorrect to surmise that limited companies were required to have public liability insurance by law - although clearly it would be foolish not to do so. My apologies if I caused concern on this account. Secondly, my accountant tells me that many of his clients, both working through limited companies and as sole traders, use part of their houses for conducting their businesses, with the relevant tax and remuneration implications that that allows. They would thus be in a position, should an accident occur in that part of the house, to be unable to deny that it was just 'part of the house'. He tells me that many of them do not have public liability insurance, but that he has encouraged several of them to take it out. Clearly this is a personal decision based on the level of risk, as with any other form of insurance. If you are, for example, conducting a scrap-metal recovery operation from your farm, or running a private explosives manufacturing operation, not having public liability insurance would be foolhardy. For those employed in gentler occupations, such as the subscribers to this group, it is a matter for personal decision based on the perceived level of risk. However, I believe that many of the 'all in' insurance policies for home-workers for equipment and so forth also cover public liability. On the subject of cats, I suspect that correlating domestic accidents with the habit of cats of lurking at the tops of stairs would reveal some interesting data. I have from time to time considered fitting my two Burmese toms with tiny lights, but this is as nothing to a friend whose large black-as-Egypt's-night British Blue cross, Knopfler, lurks at the top of a very dark Cornish cottage staircase. We have all now got into the habit of gently kicking the cat out of the way before descending the staircase, whether the cat is there or not. Maybe he should be renamed Schroedinger. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: Katie Lewis, katie@farnfilm.com Helen Birkbeck wrote: > The recent messages about insurance have really alarmed me. I > am a sole trader, earning less than GBP10,000 a year ... I think it's worth checking your household insurance first, to see just what is covered by that. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: Nancy Boston, boston.editorial@ntlworld.com What I do (office upstairs, one cat, two dogs), is simply not to have clients visiting me. If we need to meet, I will either go to their place of work, or we will arrange to meet in a public place. If clients are collecting or delivering their work (this has happened maybe twice in four years), they don't come into the house. I don't know whether I'd be liable if they slipped and injured themselves in my driveway, but I doubt that anyone would sue if they knew I wasn't insured. Tempting fate maybe, and I would have a different attitude if my business was such that clients needed to visit me (private tuition, for instance) but I believe that in many cases insurance leads to litigation. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com Nancy Boston wrote: > I don't know whether I'd be liable if they slipped and injured > themselves in my driveway, but I doubt that anyone would sue if > they knew I wasn't insured. You are liable if they slip on your driveway. In Toronto the postpeople (letter carriers) can refuse to deliver if you path isn't free of snow and ice. Same if there's a dog, that the letter carriers judge dangerous, on your front lawn. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: Katie Lewis, katie@farnfilm.com David Ibbetson wrote: > You are liable if they slip on your driveway. In Toronto the > postpeople (letter carriers) can refuse to deliver if you path > isn't free of snow and ice. But that is true for any householder, and should be covered by your household insurance. It sounds as if our best policy (sorry!) if clients visit is to make sure that they stay out of the business portion of the house - though I wonder if it makes a difference that they are clients and not insurance salesmen or whoever else might visit you? ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: Nancy Boston, boston.editorial@ntlworld.com I think it does make a difference, and if you make your client a cup of coffee or spread out the work on your kitchen table to go through it with them, then the insurance company could claim that your kitchen has temporarily become part of the business portion of the house. If people are visiting you to sell you something or if their job is to collect and deliver, it's their (or their employer's) responsibility to arrange for insurance and it makes no difference whether you're a private householder or a one-person home-based business. I'm neither a lawyer nor an insurance expert, although I did have public liability insurance when I used to rent an office in a building belonging to a university, because, as I understood it, the university's insurance only applied to their own employees and the parts of the building occupied by them. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com Katie Lewis wrote: > I wonder if it makes a difference that they are clients and > not insurance salesmen or whoever else might visit you? It may make a difference. Take expert advice. Your accountant/tax preparer should know. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 March 2003 From: Bruce Goatly, ppage@goatly.co.uk Esther Shchory wrote: > Few years ago a burglar successfully sued the owner of the > house he was burgling because he tripped and broke his leg on > a broken garden paving stone. I would not count on anyone have > common decency or common sense: get the insurance. Chapter and verse, please? This sounds like an urban myth to me... I can't see that the owner of a property has a duty of care towards someone committing an offence (or even intent on doing so) on that property. ------------------------- Date: Tues, 25 March 2003 From: Esther Shchory, eshchory@nonstop.net.il It was in the 1980s so I wouldn't remember. But I actually saw the report on the local news, and was so incensed I instigated an ethics class discussion on the subject. But to be honest I think the decision was thrown out as ridiculous and the judge who made the decision declared batty or something similar. ------------------------- Date: Tues, 25 March 2003 From: Caroline Hannan, channan@btinternet.com Esther Shchory wrote: > Few years ago a burglar successfully sued the owner of the > house he was burgling because he tripped and broke his leg on > a broken garden paving stone. Bruce Goatley replied: > I can't see that the owner of a property has a duty of care > towards someone committing an offence (or even intent on doing > so) on that property. However, I think they have. As I understand it, if you have, say, paraquat in an unmarked bottle in your locked garden shed and an intruder drinks it, you are responsible for their death. It seems mad, but I guess it's an extension of it not being legal to set man traps. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 8.32 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2002--2003, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2003 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2003 Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=