Item 21 of the Optional Survey Responsibilities in the final draft of the proposed 2011 ALTA/ACSM states:
21. Professional Liability Insurance policy obtained by the surveyor in the minimum amount of $_________ to be in effect throughout the contract term.
This may not be an issue in your locale, but I know it's really going to shake things up around here. I would guess that 3/4 of the firms I know that provide ALTA surveys in the Denver area do not carry O & E -
Keep in mind, this is an "optional" item......after consultation and negotiation, the client could write in "zero".
> 21. Professional Liability Insurance policy obtained by the surveyor in the minimum amount of $_1,000,000__ to be in effect throughout the contract term.
That was easy. I'll bet 90% of the 3/4 of the firms you refer to will fill in the blank. They'll take their chances as who will enforce it? What do they have to lose? Some old crappy equipment? They gotta get caught first.
KL
> > 21. Professional Liability Insurance policy obtained by the surveyor in the minimum amount of $_1,000,000__ to be in effect throughout the contract term.
>
> That was easy. I'll bet 90% of the 3/4 of the firms you refer to will fill in the blank. They'll take their chances as who will enforce it? What do they have to lose? Some old crappy equipment? They gotta get caught first.
>
> KL
Yep, you probably are correct.
Only in Commi-Rado -
IME - There's problems with 90% of 3/4 of the Colorado Surveyors
" There's problems with 90% of 3/4 of the Colorado Surveyors "
What percentage of the remaining 25% have problems?
jud
Something to consider:
http://www.work.com/errors--omissions-insurance-basics-47874/
Claims Made coverage
“Claims made” means that the act causing the claim has to take place during the policy term and the claim has to be filed or “made” while the policy is in effect. If the policy is canceled, non-renewed or lapsed and a claim is reported, the claim will be denied.
Occurrence coverage
Under the occurrence form of professional liability, the act leading to the claim had to have occurred during the policy term, but you can report claims after the policy has been canceled, lapsed or non-renewed. The unlimited reporting feature should be weighed against the substantially higher premiums you will have to pay. Occurrence coverage may not be available at any price to many types of professionals, such as physicians, because of the exceptionally high risk of claims and their unpredictability.
Tail Coverage
When your claims-made policy expires, lapses or is non-renewed, you’ll have the option of purchasing “tail coverage.” Tail coverage endorsements come close to turning your claims-made liability policy into an occurrence policy by giving you an extended period to report claims—generally two to five extra years.
6th --did you just say commie-rado---i be lovin it--
you are correct, most have no EO ins or not adequately covered for the jobs they are bidding--
its true though that not many ever get the crap scared out of them, usually they get a redo or the property changes hands and some other sucker joins the ALTA-CONGA-LINE to the county clerks office--the true liability becomes so comvuluted they don't know who to chase--tdd
Provide A Certificate Of Insurance
I saw that somewhere in the draft.
Given that the lowballers either get a waiver or no job.
Paul in PA
I made this comment yesterday, but I'm going to repeat it because it drew no comment.
I personally believe that as a condition of licensure and offering a professional service, demonstration of financial responsibility should be mandatory. This can be achieved with E&O insurance, a surety bond, or any other number of mechanisms. But the point is, it should be mandatory for any entity (Corp, PC, SubS, LLC, individual) that offers a professional service!
OK - now go ahead and take your best shot!
Dave,
"SHOULD" ? !
reminds me of
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts,
wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas
I don't know how much clearer I could be than saying MANDATORY - twice!
I tend to bristle at any so-called requirements that always work to the benefit of the large firms. Maybe I'm the only one who sees things that way, but, I view it as exclusionary tactics that always burden the small provider and benefit the big provider. How many butcher/slaughter shops exist today compared to 30 years ago? Does anyone really believe this has benefited the average consumer? This all revolves around perceptions, not reality.
I don't exactly consider my firm big - 6 people.
I'm not suggesting you have a large firm. I'm stating that I emphatically am opposed to anything that ALWAYS benefits a big operation with a penalizing effect on small firms.
Any time a regulating entity places a financial burden on operators such that the relative expense to adhere to the new policy is a 0.000001 percent impact on annual expense for the big boys and a 10 percent impact on annual expense for small guys, I feel offended.
Well with E&O insurance, cost of a policy is proportional to gross receipts and is also affected by type of work. In many cases the small operator will spend less of a percentage than the big boys. Also, the small firms may feel more comfortable say with $250K coverage while the big firm may want $5mil. So that is also a savings for the small guy.
FWIW, I know of a case where a surveyor was NOT sued because he didn't carry E and O. The attorneys took one look at his assets and realized there was nothing to be had there, so they left him alone.
Had he been insured, he would've been drug into a case that had nothing to do with him other than he had surveyed the property that the house was never finished on, case was actually between a contractor and the property owners.
FWIW, I know of a case where a surveyor was NOT sued because he didn't carry E and O. The attorneys took one look at his assets and realized there was nothing to be had there, so they left him alone.
Surveyors are licensed for the protection of the general public's health, safety and welfare. To me, it seem the surveyor in this example should lose his license.
How does carrying E&O Benefit big firms?
So, you think the company that carries a $10 million policy should be given priority over a company that carries the smallest policy they can afford. That little guy will be automatically excluded from the job if the client is encouraged to put in a big number, regardless of potential risk involved. That $10 million dollar policy may be covering hundreds of employees for a fraction of what a single LS firm is paying per employee for a small policy. Covering 250 employees for $10 million vs covering one or two for $200,000 or less doesn't pencil out very well. Figure in the deductible while you're at it. That alone could be a significant issue for small shops.
>
> Surveyors are licensed for the protection of the general public's health, safety and welfare. To me, it seem the surveyor in this example should lose his license.
Great idea Mike, the small operator with no E & O ins. should be deprived of their livelihood. Did you read the whole anecdote? The survey was not really relevant to the lawsuit anyway.