E & O Question - HIJACKED
> Target, you buy it for the client so you don't have to pay if there is a claim. You are providing your client with a source of funds if something goes wrong. You don't collect a dime.
I'm with both of you on this -- I only carry E&O because some clients require it, but it's nice to know that it's there so that I don't lose everything I own.
Regarding "nominal cost," last year I got away with only $2,800 for $2M coverage. A few years earlier it was over $5k. I'm about to submit my renewal application (oh, how I hate having to fill those out -- it's very tedious), and the thought of writing either check isn't very pleasant.
There is project E&O coverage available...to the client, where all the professionals working on that project would be covered under that policy for that job only. This is regardless of whatever E&O insurance you might already have.
Also possibly available to you is specific client E&O insurance, but I think that it is only available as a rider to your existing E&O policy.
Oh yeah, you can get sued on a project because you're the only one still standing with E&O insurance!
Happening to me right now.
But, really I'm not bitter!
E & O Question - HIJACKED
> Target, you buy it for the client so you don't have to pay if there is a claim. You are providing your client with a source of funds if something goes wrong. You don't collect a dime. It does not protect your license either.
> jud
Isn't that the very nature of the beast? If something goes wrong, what are you supposed to do? Talk your way out of it? Become indentured for life or until you pay off the damages?
Ralph
> Oh yeah, you can get sued on a project because you're the only one still standing with E&O insurance!
>
> Happening to me right now.
>
> But, really I'm not bitter!
You can get sued whether you have insurance or not.
WOW -HIJACKED
> That's a lot of costly mistakes. I can honestly say in 30 years of practice I haven't had a one that cost me, my company, or my insurer any money. Knock on wood.
Ok, that is wonderful that you have never made a mistake. It might be great to be able to walk on water, but the ice does get thin even when things get cold. That wood knocking is always a 'knockin.... dontcha know
RE: catch basin. Yup. It cost me $900 in back charges. I'm not quite sure if the actual charges were legit, and I still did have more work to do for the contractor. (wink wink) I won't go into the shytyy plans I had to deal with in pre-cad times. Just comp the plans, go stake things, and move on. Kinda like the old days. Out of pocket is around.....:-P
RE: fence moving. Ya, that was a doozy. My only really bad I recall. Again, pre cad days.. just me and my HP48, with my fellow robot Geodimeter 4400 working solo. I set the SW corner of a heavily wooded 40 acre parcel. About 4 yrs later another surveyor called me and said I goofed up. Sure enough I did, and I found it in my field notes (notice - not cad, but notes). It was about 12 ft, but luckily in a N-S orientation. I explained to the owner and he was cool. I helped him move about 600' of wire fence, including the posts. What was really cool is he had a cooler of beer. I also gave him a nice crispy Ben Franklin before I left.
RE: curb. I wrote "F 0.69", when it should have been "F 0.96". duh... However in this case the city made the birdbath dissappear by blaming it on the contractor because he knew the issue. Anybody here ever write "C", when they really meant "F"?
It's a good thing we're all perfect, eh clearcut. Nowadays I do carry E/O, but it's almost like kissing your sister.... yeeecchhh
...lawyers feeding lawyers feeding lawyers....
> You can get sued whether you have insurance or not.
Not only that, but you can lose, or you can settle even if you are 100% right. It can be cheaper to pay for the alleged damages even if you could win.
WOW -HIJACKED
>
> ...lawyers feeding lawyers feeding lawyers....
If it wasn't for lawyers we'd all be out of business (boundary surveyors that is).
Last time I checked, attorneys didn't bother to ask if you had insurance before filing papers.
Ask the firm in Chicago if their insurance coverage had an impact on the suit filed against them. That would be the firm that got included in a suit because one of their vehicles happened to drive past a site while the attorneys were meeting to decide whom to sue. This survey firm had their company name on the door of the truck. They had done no work on the project and had zero involvement. They just happened to pass by at the wrong time.
Am sure some will say that is silly and that nothing bad can happen to the survey firm in that case. Wrong! Until you get your name removed from the case, you are in it neck deep.
That particular firm had insurance with coverage that is called "1st Dollar Defense". It cost the firm some time and aggravation but it cost the insurance company right at $9,000 to get their name removed from the suit.
Those without insurance would have been forking over at least that amount (and maybe more) out of their own pockets.
Sorry guys, the old "having insurance means I'll get sued more" dog won't hunt.
Also pay close attention to the fact that this case has nothing to do with the quality of work you are doing. That is another old wives tale that is wrong wrong wrong. Doing good work does not automatically mean you won't be sued.
Larry P
In ten years of being on my own, the last 5 of which I have had E&O, plus the previous 18 years at a firm that had E&O I have never (knock on wood) been sued.
Insurance doesn't increase the risk it merely protects you and your client.
Negligence will always increase the risk, insured or not!
>
> Also pay close attention to the fact that this case has nothing to do with the quality of work you are doing. That is another old wives tale that is wrong wrong wrong. Doing good work does not automatically mean you won't be sued.
>
> Larry P
Another case of interest in CA was CH2M v UDC which was about a duty to defend clause in the contract. CH2M was found to have to pay for the defense in the case irregardless of whether the construction defect was a result of any of CH2M's work.
E & O Question - HIJACKED
If you have E&O, and they know it, you are more likely to be included in any particular lawsuit that pops up. But, you are not required to inform anyone whether you have E&O or not.
I have been included under the general contractors E&O for specific projects. This is usually better because the general contractor will be carrying that insurance until they go out of business (they have much larger liability issues than a mere surveyor). The contractor is better protected because they will be liable if the surveyor drops the E&O after the project.
Of course, maybe the law has changed or it's different in your state.
Whether you should have it or not is a business decision rather than an ethical or moral one, IMHO.
> >
> > Also pay close attention to the fact that this case has nothing to do with the quality of work you are doing. That is another old wives tale that is wrong wrong wrong. Doing good work does not automatically mean you won't be sued.
> >
> > Larry P
>
>
> Another case of interest in CA was CH2M v UDC which was about a duty to defend clause in the contract. CH2M was found to have to pay for the defense in the case irregardless of whether the construction defect was a result of any of CH2M's work.
irregardless isn't a word
The Oxford English Dictionary categorizes it as "nonstandard" rather than "incorrect" meaning that it is an acceptable colloquialism, not a "non word".
> irregardless isn't a word
Ain't that the truth!
Disirregardless of the above, I still use the word.................;-)
"not a 'non word'"?
Personally, I don't like "irregardless" irrespective of whether it's a word or not.
Anyway, funny video. :good:
I guess Snoop's a grammar nazi, you'e a grammar-nazi nazi....and I hate to think what that makes me.
I've always hated the non-word 'irregardless" because i can't understand what it means. Is it the opposite of regardless? or a stronger more emphatic regardless?
sure, it has slipped into colloquial usage, but that doesn't make it right. Anymore than "ain't" and "y'all".... I use y'all but not ain't and never irregardless...
So, what does "irregardless" mean???
language tangent
I have certain words that are just 'pet peeves'. I don't correct everything I think is wrong, and I know I make errors as well; but those pet peeves, I have trouble not gritting my teeth and/or making a comment when I hear them. ("orientated" is another when used in places where "oriented" would work just fine)
It is obviously used whenever someone means "regardless". I think it is a mixed-up combination of 'regardless' and 'irrespective'. Those two words mean about same thing, and most the time, one could be interchanged with the other in a sentence.
> Disirregardless of the above, I still use the word.................;-)
Yep, I don't pay no never mind to none of them fancy rules and such.
I purty much figure that ya don't have to talk like the queen of england to have a good jawwing with a feller.
