Originally posted by fatmcgav
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Professional Indemnity Insurance - Client "named as additionally insured"?"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostYes, I have experience of this, and my experience is that you have next to no chance of agreeing anything with a US client other than a US state for the jurisdiction and governing law (note that these two things are different). Unfortunately, insurance for the US market (based on US jurisdiction and governing law) can be prohibitively expensive and I've personally spent quite a lot of time and effort finding something suitable for my line of work (which is not IT). If you're a member of PCG (and you should be), take a look at the forum over there and you'll find a few options to explore. For example, I believe Randell Dorling offers a discount on their PI insurance through PCG for the US market, but it requires that you are a PCG member. That being said, I do not have any of my clients named as additionally insured on my policies, and I haven't come across that clause, but a lot of stuff for the US market doesn't translate directly.
Cheers for the response, and for the suggestion of Randell Dorling.
I'm not a member of PCG yet, but it's on my list to sort out.
Interestingly, running through an online quote on the Randell Dorling site, it's about 25% more expensive to add US cover, so not too bad...
I'm trying to get my client to drop the 'additionally named' clause, so hopefully that will simplify things slightly...
Cheers again
Gav
Leave a comment:
-
Yes, I have experience of this, and my experience is that you have next to no chance of agreeing anything with a US client other than a US state for the jurisdiction and governing law (note that these two things are different). Unfortunately, insurance for the US market (based on US jurisdiction and governing law) can be prohibitively expensive and I've personally spent quite a lot of time and effort finding something suitable for my line of work (which is not IT). If you're a member of PCG (and you should be), take a look at the forum over there and you'll find a few options to explore. For example, I believe Randell Dorling offers a discount on their PI insurance through PCG for the US market, but it requires that you are a PCG member. That being said, I do not have any of my clients named as additionally insured on my policies, and I haven't come across that clause, but a lot of stuff for the US market doesn't translate directly.
Leave a comment:
-
Ok, I asked the question of Qdos as-to whether the policy would cover me with US clients, and they said yes, as long as the contract is under UK jurisdiction.
Now I think that is probably going to be a challenge as the client is engaging me in a subcontracting agreement, and all the wording thus far has suggested that the agreement is covered by US governing law...
Suspect this change is going to be a hard sell...
Has anyone experienced anything similar?
Cheers
Gavin
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Taita View PostNot seen this in PI but it is a common enough insurance requirement, e.g, mortgage lenders/buildings insurance. However, please make absolutely sure that your PI covers work outside of Europe or non-European clients.
Good point.. Will ask that question of Qdos
Cheers
Gav
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by fatmcgav View PostAfternoon all
As previously posted on here, I'm in the process of agreeing terms with a US IT Co to act as a sub-contractor on one of their upcoming projects.
They've provided me with a 'Subcontracting Agreement' which they've asked me to review and sign.
Most of it looks like fairly standard stuff - Services, Fees and Billing, Termination, Ownership etc etc...
The only one that's stood out as to me is the 'Insurance' section.
The section is worded as follows:
I'm happy enough with taking out PI insurance to cover my Ltd Co. to the tune of £1m through QDOS; however what I'm not sure on is: CompanyX shall be named as an additional insured under the policies.
This doesn't sound like the normal way of doing it to me. I've had a search around the QDOS site and haven't been able to find out any info on the subject, so thought I'd ask what peoples thoughts were...
I'm also planning on giving QDOS a call when I have an opportunity to see what their view is.
Cheers in advance for any responses.
Regards
Gavin
Leave a comment:
-
Cheers for the responses both.
Got onto a Live chat session with Hannah @ Qdos, and she was able to answer my questions.
Long and short is that Qdos are not able to name clients on the schedules, but they do offer an indemnity to principal clause, which was described as:
It sets out that the insurer will pay the policyholder’s client (the ‘principal’) directly in the event of a claim. Without this clause, the insurer would pay the policyholder in the event of a claim, and the policyholder would subsequently pay the principal. It does not affect the policy in any other way.
Cheers again
Gav
Leave a comment:
-
It's acceptable for a clause like the following to be mentioned in the contract:
The [YourCo] will notify the insurers of the Company's interest and will cause the interest to be noted on the insurance policy.
Not sure about the precise wording of your clause though...
Leave a comment:
-
Odd
That does look strange. They're asking for your company insurance policy to cover them also, it seems. Speak to QDOS asap. They have a livechat thingy once you're signed in, which is perfect. I sorted out a contract review without speaking to anyone.
Leave a comment:
-
Professional Indemnity Insurance - Client "named as additionally insured"?
Afternoon all
As previously posted on here, I'm in the process of agreeing terms with a US IT Co to act as a sub-contractor on one of their upcoming projects.
They've provided me with a 'Subcontracting Agreement' which they've asked me to review and sign.
Most of it looks like fairly standard stuff - Services, Fees and Billing, Termination, Ownership etc etc...
The only one that's stood out as to me is the 'Insurance' section.
The section is worded as follows:
11. Insurance. Prior to commencing any Services, Contractor shall provide CompanyX with a Certificate of Insurance satisfactory to
CompanyX. The Certificate of Insurance shall reflect, at a minimum, the following policies: (a) Professional Liability (errors and
omissions) at $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate. CompanyX shall be named as an additional insured under
the policies. Contractor waives all rights of recovery against CompanyX and its affiliates for any loss or damage covered by the
Commercial General Liability Insurance policies. The complete or partial failure of Contractor’s insurance carrier to fully protect
and indemnify CompanyX or the inadequacy of the insurance coverage shall not in any way lessen or affect the obligations of
Contractor to indemnify CompanyX under Section 10.
This doesn't sound like the normal way of doing it to me. I've had a search around the QDOS site and haven't been able to find out any info on the subject, so thought I'd ask what peoples thoughts were...
I'm also planning on giving QDOS a call when I have an opportunity to see what their view is.
Cheers in advance for any responses.
Regards
GavinTags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: