Insurance renewal

[blacjac]

I can't agree to that

[Wanderer]

So they can come after you personally.

So contractors should have insurance in the OWN name rather than the for their company?

[contractor79]

How can they come after you personally? It doesn't appear I can sue the directors of a recruitment company who can't pay me for my work.

[The Wikir Man]

So contractors should have insurance in the OWN name rather than the for their company?

Not necessarily - you should make sure that there is insurance in place that covers you. Whether that is insurance in the company name, insurance in your name, or cancelled insurance which has an appropriate run off period is up to you.

[blacjac]

How can they come after you personally? It doesn't appear I can sue the directors of a recruitment company who can't pay me for my work.

You can, but you probabally can't afford the lawyers you would need to make it work...........

[Clippy]

Personally, I am disappointed that the regular posters from the insurance providers (QDos?) have so far failed to provide any insight to this debate.

At the time of writing this, they are currently logged on and viewing General - must be more important stuff in there that requires their attention.

[The Wikir Man]

Personally, I am disappointed that the regular posters from the insurance providers (QDos?) have so far failed to provide any insight to this debate.

At the time of writing this, they are currently logged on and viewing General - must be more important stuff in there that requires their attention.

You could *gasp* ring them and ask them? Or even PM them?

[Qdos Contractor]

PI insurance is almost always written on a ‘claims made’ basis. This means that the policy will only cover claims (or circumstances that may give rise to a claim) which are made against the insured and notified to the insurer during the period of insurance, regardless of when the wrongful act which led to the claim occurred.

In many cases insurers will not be willing to provide cover for work carried out prior to policy inception and will apply what is called a ‘retroactive date’ to their policies. The effect of the retroactive date is to restrict the insurer’s liability only to claims which arise from work carried out by the insured after the specified date.

In most cases the insured will be able to specify their retroactive date based on previous insurance held or will be able to request cover without a retroactive date when applying for PI insurance. A ‘claims made’ PI policy that does not have a retroactive date is better for the insured because there will be no restriction on when the wrongful act must have occurred provided a valid policy is in force at the time the claim is made against the insured and notified to the insurer.

If a 'claims made' policy is allowed to lapse, or is cancelled, any losses suffered thereafter will be your responsibility. As it is possible for a wrongful act claim to be brought against you after you have ceased trading it would be recommended to take out run-off cover for your own peace of mind.

Public Liability, on the other hand, is generally written on a ‘losses occurring’ basis and will cover events which occur during the period of insurance even if the resultant claim is not made until after the policy has lapsed. Therefore, where a company has ceased to trade, run-off cover should not be required.

In some (rare) cases an insurer may issue a ‘claims made’ PL policy – it is recommended that you check your existing policy documentation to see which type of cover you have.

[The Wikir Man]

If a 'claims made' policy is allowed to lapse, or is cancelled, any losses suffered thereafter will be your responsibility. As it is possible for a wrongful act claim to be brought against you after you have ceased trading it would be recommended to take out run-off cover for your own peace of mind.

WIS

Not necessarily - you should make sure that there is insurance in place that covers you. Whether that is insurance in the company name, insurance in your name, or cancelled insurance which has an appropriate run off period is up to you.

I really should give up this IT lark and go into insurance and legal advice.....

[Clippy]

Appreciate the insight - couple of follow up questions.

PI insurance is almost always written on a ‘claims made’ basis. This means that the policy will only cover claims (or circumstances that may give rise to a claim) which are made against the insured and notified to the insurer during the period of insurance, regardless of when the wrongful act which led to the claim occurred.

In many cases insurers will not be willing to provide cover for work carried out prior to policy inception and will apply what is called a ‘retroactive date’ to their policies. The effect of the retroactive date is to restrict the insurer’s liability only to claims which arise from work carried out by the insured after the specified date.

In most cases the insured will be able to specify their retroactive date based on previous insurance held or will be able to request cover without a retroactive date when applying for PI insurance. A ‘claims made’ PI policy that does not have a retroactive date is better for the insured because there will be no restriction on when the wrongful act must have occurred provided a valid policy is in force at the time the claim is made against the insured and notified to the insurer.

So, as an example, a combination of the fact that PI insurance is invariably written on a 'claims made' basis and the PI policy having no retroactive cover means that the policy will only cover you for claims raised during the period it is actively in effect. Correct?

If so, and as an example, if you had such a policy for 4 years with no break in cover in-between, then you would be covered by each policy individually for their respective cover periods.

What I am trying to get at is that, for example, a short break in cover between each policy would not make any difference as each policy in effect runs in 'silo mode' with continuous cover being irrelevant.

If a 'claims made' policy is allowed to lapse, or is cancelled, any losses suffered thereafter will be your responsibility. As it is possible for a wrongful act claim to be brought against you after you have ceased trading it would be recommended to take out run-off cover for your own peace of mind.

Can PI insurance, assuming it doesn't by default, be extended to cover an individual personally (Re: Zeity's post which highlighted an example of where an individual was held personally liable) or would you need to take out another insurance product to provide this cover?