E&O Ins.

I didn't carry E&O for the first 7 or so years I was in business. It was only after some public agency clients insisted that I picked it up.

Same here, big projects, big firms, e&o...
If you have a problem, fix it. Don't send it to e&o or your rates will go up. I saw one other surveyor who reversed a pol, plotted the house and garage in the wrong spots, made a division. When the problem was discovered the attorney advised him not to fix it. He spent time in court and time for fees. Had he simply fixed it, he would have suffered far less.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What form is your business set up in?

Consider the $ amount of your liability connected to the projects that you survey.
Get some quotes for the $ amount for what coverage will cost you.

When you are always right, there is no need for insurance.............

If you plan on doing residential surveys, and a small house stake out once in a while, you can probably gamble and be safe without it. If you plan on doing ALTA surveys, commercial construction or government work you will need $1,000,000 policy at a minimum. Liability insurance is probably more important.

I got it as soon as I started. I did maybe one survey and one floodncert before getting it. If you don't have it and make a mistake it could ruin you. It's not worth it in my opinion. Just get a cheap 250k policy to start.

Floyd Carrington, post: 428154, member: 474 wrote: What form is your business set up in?

It's an s-corp.
[QUOTE=Dan Patterson, post: 428180, member: 1179Just get a cheap 250k policy to start.

I asked the agent about this and she said 1M was almost the same price as 500K.

Thanks everyone for the input.

I started out with 500k in 2013, I picked up a job that first year that required 1m so I went ahead and upped the coverage amount. It was only $300 more per year.

First year I went without then picked up 500k, then up to 1mil. The projects I was getting required it.

When you are always right, there is no need for insurance.............

Mr. Harris, appartently you have never been involved in a shotgun lawsuit. Doesn't matter if you right or wrong. I was involved in one, in the end I was released from the suit without paying a penny - I was right. I had first dollar defense and it cost my insurance carrier $35,000 to defend me.

It doesn't matter how you company is organized, you are still the guy who signed it and you are liable.

[USER=319]@SURVEYLTD[/USER]
I do not believe that I have ever placed myself in a situation where I could have been associated in being under the control of another.
Apparently you were being paid by the ones that screwed up.
Sub contractors need all the help they can get because all the blame trickles down to them.
Being independent of all others has some advantages.

You don't have to be wrong to be sued.

You don't have to be wrong to lose.

A Harris, post: 428237, member: 81 wrote: [USER=319]@SURVEYLTD[/USER]
I do not believe that I have ever placed myself in a situation where I could have been associated in being under the control of another.
Apparently you were being paid by the ones that screwed up.
Sub contractors need all the help they can get because all the blame trickles down to them.
Being independent of all others has some advantages.

---

Well to explain the situation.

I was hired by a company the builds homes. I did a survey, topo, final survey and final topo.

The basement flooded, the foundation wall was cracked, the a/c didn't work on the second floor, the doors stuck, the two car garage was a 1-1/2 car garage. the gutters leaked, and probably a dozen more things that don't come to mind right now.

Everyone involve on the job got sued. There were 10 or 12 attorneys involved, and it went on for 2 years.

As I stated, I never paid a penny and was eventually released from the law suit, but it would have cost me thousands of dollars to defend myself and god knows how much time.

I don't really know how this could be considered being under the control of by someone other, as you state. I offer a sevice and would guess we all do work of the same nature. Sometimes unknowingly you get a bad client.

No disrespect intended, but I'm sure glad I have the first dollar defense on my E & O insurance.

About a dozen of so state have Certificate of Merit legislation, to help someone avoid this situation. Illinois doesn't.

It's not just for yourself, but it's in the best interest of your clients to have E&O.

Dtp

[USER=10876]@JMH4825[/USER]

Iƒ??m a sub S corp. too. But I only work for production housing firms, all of whom require at least $1M-$3M in liability insurance (E&O).
Rates are based on gross yearly billings and your deductible.
As previously stated in a post above, sometimes it is to your benefit to pay ƒ??out of pocketƒ? instead of utilizing your policy. For instance if your deductible is $5k and a screw up costs $7k it is to your advantage to pay the $7k rather than file a claim. If you file your rates WILL go up.

You said 90% of your work is in boundary surveys. I donƒ??t know what the real estate values are in your location but in Florida you would be flirting with disaster by not having liability insurance. (There are as many "Lawyers" in FL as there are "Realtors". 😉

Just my 0.20 worth 😎

foggyidea, post: 428376, member: 155 wrote: It's not just for yourself, but it's in the best interest of your clients to have E&O.

I've seen this argument before, and I continue to find it bizarre. My clients are, without exception, legally capable of entering a contract, and are presumed to be able to look out for their own interests. I deal with all my clients in good faith, I don't take needless risks in executing the work that might result in damage to my client. The small risk that remains in jointly undertaken by my client and me. If they choose to require insurance as their preferred response to that risk, that's fine, and that's the reason I carry it. But I don't feel any responsibility to carry insurance to protect my client unless required by my client.

It would also be in my client's best interest if I were to work for free, but I'm not going to do that, either.

Jim Frame, post: 428381, member: 10 wrote: I've seen this argument before, and I continue to find it bizarre. My clients are, without exception, legally capable of entering a contract, and are presumed to be able to look out for their own interests. I deal with all my clients in good faith, I don't take needless risks in executing the work that might result in damage to my client. The small risk that remains in jointly undertaken by my client and me. If they choose to require insurance as their preferred response to that risk, that's fine, and that's the reason I carry it. But I don't feel any responsibility to carry insurance to protect my client unless required by my client.

It would also be in my client's best interest if I were to work for free, but I'm not going to do that, either.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But if you, as a professional, make an error that costs your client more than you can afford to fix, how is your clients served? I don't take any needless risks either, but with property values such as they are here on the Cape, I doubt that I could afford to recompense the client if I made a horrible blunder that resulted in significant costs. So, if a client has to move, or remove, a house do to your blunder and you can't pay to have it done and your client is out a massive amount of money, and you're stuck with a lien on your home, office and earnings, who did you serve?