On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:34:41 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In message e.net, at
12:26:37 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
remarked:
The cheapness shows how little coverage it provides, once you fully
understand what failings (by the insured) are and aren't included.

It isn't cheap because it covers very little, it's cheap because it's
covering something for which the risk is extremely low. The vast majority
of people and organisations who have public liability insurance will never
need to claim against it at all. The reason they have it is because the
consequences of such a claim would be catastrophic without it.

Events which would require you to compensate a member of the public for
injury or death caused by your actions are very, very unusual.

You've perhaps inadvertently put your finger on the issue. This sort of
insurance covers the public at the venue, not the venue itself.

So if you burn it down, the only claim it'll pay will be from attendees
who failed to flee quickly enough. Rebuilding the hotel afterwards is
SEP.

Yes. But that's why it's so cheap. If it had to pay for things that are
normally covered by the venue's insurance, it would be considerably more
(and perhaps prohibitively) expensive.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

In message e.net, at
15:16:21 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
remarked:
You've perhaps inadvertently put your finger on the issue. This sort of
insurance covers the public at the venue, not the venue itself.

So if you burn it down, the only claim it'll pay will be from attendees
who failed to flee quickly enough. Rebuilding the hotel afterwards is
SEP.

Yes. But that's why it's so cheap. If it had to pay for things that are
normally covered by the venue's insurance, it would be considerably more
(and perhaps prohibitively) expensive.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but at least we can agree that
these "£100 for £10m coverage" policies are covering much less than some
people think they are.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:46:13 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In message e.net, at
15:16:21 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
remarked:
You've perhaps inadvertently put your finger on the issue. This sort of
insurance covers the public at the venue, not the venue itself.

So if you burn it down, the only claim it'll pay will be from attendees
who failed to flee quickly enough. Rebuilding the hotel afterwards is
SEP.

Yes. But that's why it's so cheap. If it had to pay for things that are
normally covered by the venue's insurance, it would be considerably more
(and perhaps prohibitively) expensive.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but at least we can agree that
these "£100 for £10m coverage" policies are covering much less than some
people think they are.

I'm not sure what people think they're covering. As far as I can see, it's
pretty obvious that they're covering you for exactly what it says on the
tin: Public liability. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

In message e.net, at
17:14:50 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Mark Goodge
remarked:
It's a bit more complicated than that, but at least we can agree that
these "£100 for £10m coverage" policies are covering much less than some
people think they are.

I'm not sure what people think they're covering. As far as I can see, it's
pretty obvious that they're covering you for exactly what it says on the
tin: Public liability. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some people seem to think the venue itself is part of "the public".
--
Roland Perry

You've perhaps inadvertently put your finger on the issue. This sort
of insurance covers the public at the venue, not the venue itself.

So if you burn it down, the only claim it'll pay will be from
attendees who failed to flee quickly enough. Rebuilding the hotel
afterwards is SEP.

Which policies fo you have in mind? During the brief period when I was
a "sole trader" and required to have public liability insurance (PLI) it
covered me for just that - ie burning down a customer's offices - among
other things. It was cheap as I was not wielding anything more
fire-raising than a laptop.

Looking at it another way, are you saying that if electricians were
negligent while installing new circuits in a building which leads to the
building burning down then their PLI won't cover them?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In message , at 20:50:41 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012,
Robin remarked:
Looking at it another way, are you saying that if electricians were
negligent while installing new circuits in a building which leads to the
building burning down then their PLI won't cover them?

That's Professional Indemnity, not Public Liability.
--
Roland Perry

Phil W Lee wrote:

Our BS1363 fused plugs (and the sockets to match) are a masterpiece of
design,

As area denial weapons they have few equals, it is true.

As plugs they have a couple of issues. As I understand it
the use of square pins requires a much higher contact force,
which in turn means that it's much harder to pull the plug
out, which
1) makes life more difficult for the elderly and / or arthritic
2) makes it more likely that the cable will pull out of the plug
rather than the plug out of the socket.

In the second case, this has the effect that if the plug is
badly wired, then the earth pulls out first rather than last.
And then has a good chance of making contact with one of the
others.

A good design would take into account lazy and / or incompetent
rewiring. It's no good saying "users ought to do this or that".
They won't.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:56:45 +0100
Phil W Lee wrote:

All the round-pin designs I've used of similar current carrying
capacity have needed greater force, not less.

The old round pin 15A plugs that I remember from childhood in the 60s
were indeed very stiff to insert and remove. My dad said at the time
that the current rectangular pin plugs were a big improvement.

I think we had the final pair of 3 pin round sockets replaced in our
garage in about 1971, I remember rewiring the plugs on a power drill
and an inspection lamp at about that time.

--

Brian Morrison

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 20:50:41 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012,
Robin remarked:
Looking at it another way, are you saying that if electricians were
negligent while installing new circuits in a building which leads to the
building burning down then their PLI won't cover them?

That's Professional Indemnity, not Public Liability.

No, Professional Indemnity is when you give advice and it turns out to
be wrong. Public Liability is if you are a tradesman/worker, and ruin a
carpet/drop a hammer on an antique vase, or cause a flood downstairs
after drilling into a pipe or other such harm, as well as harming
people.
And, despite your doubts, they do cover you if you burn an house down
(so long as you worked to their requirements), and will pay if you ruin
a carpet.

Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

In message , at 16:11:00 on
Wed, 6 Jun 2012, A.Lee remarked:
Looking at it another way, are you saying that if electricians were
negligent while installing new circuits in a building which leads to the
building burning down then their PLI won't cover them?

That's Professional Indemnity, not Public Liability.

No, Professional Indemnity is when you give advice and it turns out to
be wrong. Public Liability is if you are a tradesman/worker, and ruin a
carpet/drop a hammer on an antique vase, or cause a flood downstairs
after drilling into a pipe or other such harm, as well as harming
people.
And, despite your doubts, they do cover you if you burn an house down
(so long as you worked to their requirements), and will pay if you ruin
a carpet.

Given the rates people have quoted (premiums of about 1:10,000 of the
cover) I don't think PL Insurance is in any sense a guarantee on the
work done by ham-fisted contractors. The numbers simply don't work.

In particular, I'm led to believe that PL insurance doesn't cover anyone
you have a contractual relationship with, so burning down the house of
someone who asked you to do a job for them doesn't count.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:11:00 on
Wed, 6 Jun 2012, A.Lee remarked:
Looking at it another way, are you saying that if electricians were
negligent while installing new circuits in a building which leads to the
building burning down then their PLI won't cover them?

That's Professional Indemnity, not Public Liability.

No, Professional Indemnity is when you give advice and it turns out to
be wrong. Public Liability is if you are a tradesman/worker, and ruin a
carpet/drop a hammer on an antique vase, or cause a flood downstairs
after drilling into a pipe or other such harm, as well as harming
people.
And, despite your doubts, they do cover you if you burn an house down
(so long as you worked to their requirements), and will pay if you ruin
a carpet.

Given the rates people have quoted (premiums of about 1:10,000 of the
cover) I don't think PL Insurance is in any sense a guarantee on the
work done by ham-fisted contractors. The numbers simply don't work.

That's because there are so few claims, that the premums are kept low.
My excess is £500 iirc, any damage I cause is likely to be less than
£500 - I've chipped a kitchen sink before, and broken a toilet pan, both
were less than £500, so I just bought new ones myself, which any
respectable tradesman would do, mainly to save the trouble for the
customer, and my insurance wouldnt cover it anyway.

In particular, I'm led to believe that PL insurance doesn't cover anyone
you have a contractual relationship with, so burning down the house of
someone who asked you to do a job for them doesn't count.

Yes it does. If you are working for someone, you are covered for
whatever is included in your policy. I cannot use any heat inside
premises - if I burn an house down through using a gas torch inside,
then i will have to pay myself, if however I advertently drill through a
gas pipe, and an explosion ensues, then they will pay out, so long as I
was acting diligently while working.


--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

In message , at 17:41:02 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, August West remarked:
In particular, I'm led to believe that PL insurance doesn't cover
anyone you have a contractual relationship with, so burning down the
house of someone who asked you to do a job for them doesn't count.

This site
http://www.bytestart.co.uk/what-is-p...insurance.html
suggests differently:

"Here are some examples of when you will typically be able to claim on
your policy:

nb. Not "your PL policy".

1. You are a sole trader IT support engineer. While visiting a customer
site, you knock a cup of tea down the back of a server, knocking out the
client's network and damaging the hardware beyond repair."

It makes you wonder why they also offer "tradesman insurance", if things
like that really are covered. And when you ask for a quote, the PL cover
appears to be only for "Injury to visitors".

"You make a mistake" is Professional Indemnity.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:56:08 on
Wed, 6 Jun 2012, A.Lee remarked:
In particular, I'm led to believe that PL insurance doesn't cover anyone
you have a contractual relationship with, so burning down the house of
someone who asked you to do a job for them doesn't count.

Yes it does. If you are working for someone, you are covered for
whatever is included in your policy.

Which it seems doesn't (by your own admission) include every form of
negligence such as:

I cannot use any heat inside premises - if I burn an house down through
using a gas torch inside, then i will have to pay myself,

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:05:45 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 17:41:02 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, August West remarked:
In particular, I'm led to believe that PL insurance doesn't cover
anyone you have a contractual relationship with, so burning down the
house of someone who asked you to do a job for them doesn't count.

This site
http://www.bytestart.co.uk/what-is-p...insurance.html
suggests differently:

"Here are some examples of when you will typically be able to claim on
your policy:

nb. Not "your PL policy".

1. You are a sole trader IT support engineer. While visiting a customer
site, you knock a cup of tea down the back of a server, knocking out
the
client's network and damaging the hardware beyond repair."

It makes you wonder why they also offer "tradesman insurance", if things
like that really are covered. And when you ask for a quote, the PL cover
appears to be only for "Injury to visitors".

"You make a mistake" is Professional Indemnity.

No, professional indemnity covers costs caused by failure of your
advice/services,
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg...type=RESOURCES
so if you set fire to somebodys house whilst installing the fire alarm
then that's public liability, if your fire alarm fails to ring the fire
brigade that's professional indemnity.

Tradesman Insurance doesn't normally include Professional Indemnity, so
I'm not quite sure where that herring was caught?

In message , at 18:20:53 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, August West remarked:
Indeed, to expand the quote, since you clearly didn't follow the link:

I did follow the link, and it tried to sell me a different insurance.
--
Roland Perry

In message op.wfhsk1zjloxewg@duncan-tosh, at 18:37:39 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
It makes you wonder why they also offer "tradesman insurance", if
things like that really are covered. And when you ask for a quote,
the PL cover appears to be only for "Injury to visitors".

"You make a mistake" is Professional Indemnity.

No, professional indemnity covers costs caused by failure of your
advice/services,
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg...1074405987&typ
e=RESOURCES
so if you set fire to somebodys house whilst installing the fire alarm
then that's public liability, if your fire alarm fails to ring the fire
brigade that's professional indemnity.

Tradesman Insurance doesn't normally include Professional Indemnity, so
I'm not quite sure where that herring was caught?

Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.
--
Roland Perry

Which it seems doesn't (by your own admission) include every form of
negligence such as:

I am sorry but I don't see the relevance of that comment. Most
comprehensive car policies will not cover you are driving an HGV. That
doesn't stop them being comprehensive car insurance policies. Alan
seemed to me merely to make the point that your argument about the
quantum of the premium needed to take account of the risks covered, and
that for some trades the cost of public liability insurance was much
higher.

I cannot use any heat inside premises - if I burn an house down
through using a gas torch inside, then i will have to pay myself,


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Roland Perry wrote:

In message op.wfhsk1zjloxewg@duncan-tosh, at 18:37:39 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
It makes you wonder why they also offer "tradesman insurance", if
things like that really are covered. And when you ask for a quote,
the PL cover appears to be only for "Injury to visitors".

"You make a mistake" is Professional Indemnity.

No, professional indemnity covers costs caused by failure of your
advice/services,
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg...1074405987&typ
e=RESOURCES
so if you set fire to somebodys house whilst installing the fire alarm
then that's public liability, if your fire alarm fails to ring the fire
brigade that's professional indemnity.

Tradesman Insurance doesn't normally include Professional Indemnity, so
I'm not quite sure where that herring was caught?

Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

For once, why not just say that you are wrong?

No doubt, you will reply with loads of reasons, mostly extremely
pedantic, like the comment to my previous post, that you are actually
right, and everyone else is wrong.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:48:16 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message op.wfhsk1zjloxewg@duncan-tosh, at 18:37:39 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
It makes you wonder why they also offer "tradesman insurance", if
things like that really are covered. And when you ask for a quote,
the PL cover appears to be only for "Injury to visitors".

"You make a mistake" is Professional Indemnity.

No, professional indemnity covers costs caused by failure of your
advice/services,
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg...1074405987&typ
e=RESOURCES
so if you set fire to somebodys house whilst installing the fire alarm
then that's public liability, if your fire alarm fails to ring the fire
brigade that's professional indemnity.

Tradesman Insurance doesn't normally include Professional Indemnity, so
I'm not quite sure where that herring was caught?

Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

"Indemnity
The Company will indemnify the Insured
against all sums that the Insured shall
become legally liable to pay as damages and
costs and expenses of claimants in respect
of accidental
a) injury to any person
b) loss of or damage to material property
c) nuisance or trespass obstruction loss of
amenities or interference with any right of
way light air or water
d) wrongful arrest detention imprisonment or
eviction of any person or invasion of the
right of privacy
occurring within the Territorial Limits during
the period of insurance and happening in
connection with the Business."

Is what mine says. What else where you expecting it to cover.

On 06/06/2012 19:48, Roland Perry wrote:

Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

I've got a PI policy like that. Around £500/pa. (Cover quite likely
excludes the USA though, as I don't currently have any clients there I
see no point in paying the extra.)

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:11:00 on
Wed, 6 Jun 2012, A.Lee remarked:
Looking at it another way, are you saying that if electricians were
negligent while installing new circuits in a building which leads to the
building burning down then their PLI won't cover them?

That's Professional Indemnity, not Public Liability.

No, Professional Indemnity is when you give advice and it turns out to
be wrong. Public Liability is if you are a tradesman/worker, and ruin a
carpet/drop a hammer on an antique vase, or cause a flood downstairs
after drilling into a pipe or other such harm, as well as harming
people.
And, despite your doubts, they do cover you if you burn an house down
(so long as you worked to their requirements), and will pay if you ruin
a carpet.

Given the rates people have quoted (premiums of about 1:10,000 of the
cover) I don't think PL Insurance is in any sense a guarantee on the
work done by ham-fisted contractors. The numbers simply don't work.

In particular, I'm led to believe that PL insurance doesn't cover anyone
you have a contractual relationship with, so burning down the house of
someone who asked you to do a job for them doesn't count.

AFAIUI (from having been asked to procure it) PLI covers accidents and
injuries involving third-parties, which I believe is what you are
getting at. It's a supplemental cover for 'the public' for which the
first parties' insurance may not be adequate. cf. a visitor tripping
over a trailing lead put out by us (renting the premises) rather than
the museum itself.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:44:53 +0100, wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

In message op.wfhsk1zjloxewg@duncan-tosh, at 18:37:39 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
It makes you wonder why they also offer "tradesman insurance", if
things like that really are covered. And when you ask for a quote,
the PL cover appears to be only for "Injury to visitors".

"You make a mistake" is Professional Indemnity.

No, professional indemnity covers costs caused by failure of your
advice/services,
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg...1074405987&typ
e=RESOURCES
so if you set fire to somebodys house whilst installing the fire alarm
then that's public liability, if your fire alarm fails to ring the fire
brigade that's professional indemnity.

Tradesman Insurance doesn't normally include Professional Indemnity, so
I'm not quite sure where that herring was caught?

Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

For once, why not just say that you are wrong?

You'll be lucky :-)


No doubt, you will reply with loads of reasons, mostly extremely
pedantic, like the comment to my previous post, that you are actually
right, and everyone else is wrong.


--
Alan

To Reply, use e-s.news AT ourmailbox.org.uk in a sensible manner....

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Fevric J. Glandules" considered Wed, 6 Jun 2012
08:55:40 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:

Our BS1363 fused plugs (and the sockets to match) are a masterpiece of
design,

As area denial weapons they have few equals, it is true.

Lego.

As plugs they have a couple of issues. As I understand it
the use of square pins requires a much higher contact force,

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.
All the round-pin designs I've used of similar current carrying
capacity have needed greater force, not less.
If there is anything that adds to the force required to insert or
remove BS1363 plugs, it is the shutter mechanism in the socket, which
I certainly wouldn't want to see removed.
Contact pressure makes almost no difference at all, although poor
quality plugs are likely to be more difficult to insert, as the pins
tend not to be profiled as accurately, particularly at the tips.

which in turn means that it's much harder to pull the plug
out, which
1) makes life more difficult for the elderly and / or arthritic

There are shaped plugs and plug pullers available for those with
special needs.

2) makes it more likely that the cable will pull out of the plug
rather than the plug out of the socket.

The plug is deliberately designed to make it very difficult to pull
out by yanking on the cable.
Again, cheap & nasty ones tend to be worse to remove, as they often
don't have a very good profile on the body of the plug, so are harder
to grip.

In the second case, this has the effect that if the plug is
badly wired, then the earth pulls out first rather than last.
And then has a good chance of making contact with one of the
others.

A good design would take into account lazy and / or incompetent
rewiring. It's no good saying "users ought to do this or that".
They won't.

Hence modern appliances almost all coming with moulded on plugs.
Fine until the cable frays or splits, and you need to replace it.
Then /someone/ needs to know how to wire a plug properly,

Not with cables with a plug on each end.

and because
moulded plugs have made this a rarer skill, it becomes more likely
that the appliance will be operated with a frayed and dangerous cable.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:35:46 +0100, Sam Jones wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Fevric J. Glandules" considered Wed, 6 Jun 2012
08:55:40 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:

Our BS1363 fused plugs (and the sockets to match) are a masterpiece of
design,

As area denial weapons they have few equals, it is true.

Lego.

As plugs they have a couple of issues. As I understand it
the use of square pins requires a much higher contact force,

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.
All the round-pin designs I've used of similar current carrying
capacity have needed greater force, not less.
If there is anything that adds to the force required to insert or
remove BS1363 plugs, it is the shutter mechanism in the socket, which
I certainly wouldn't want to see removed.
Contact pressure makes almost no difference at all, although poor
quality plugs are likely to be more difficult to insert, as the pins
tend not to be profiled as accurately, particularly at the tips.

which in turn means that it's much harder to pull the plug
out, which
1) makes life more difficult for the elderly and / or arthritic

There are shaped plugs and plug pullers available for those with
special needs.

2) makes it more likely that the cable will pull out of the plug
rather than the plug out of the socket.

The plug is deliberately designed to make it very difficult to pull
out by yanking on the cable.
Again, cheap & nasty ones tend to be worse to remove, as they often
don't have a very good profile on the body of the plug, so are harder
to grip.

In the second case, this has the effect that if the plug is
badly wired, then the earth pulls out first rather than last.
And then has a good chance of making contact with one of the
others.

A good design would take into account lazy and / or incompetent
rewiring. It's no good saying "users ought to do this or that".
They won't.

Hence modern appliances almost all coming with moulded on plugs.
Fine until the cable frays or splits, and you need to replace it.
Then /someone/ needs to know how to wire a plug properly,

Not with cables with a plug on each end.


There's not much one can do to stop people who are incompetent enough to
make mains leads with plugs on both ends from doing stupid things.

and because
moulded plugs have made this a rarer skill, it becomes more likely
that the appliance will be operated with a frayed and dangerous cable.

"Duncan Wood" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:35:46 +0100, Sam Jones wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Fevric J. Glandules" considered Wed, 6 Jun 2012
08:55:40 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:

Our BS1363 fused plugs (and the sockets to match) are a masterpiece of
design,

As area denial weapons they have few equals, it is true.

Lego.

As plugs they have a couple of issues. As I understand it
the use of square pins requires a much higher contact force,

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.
All the round-pin designs I've used of similar current carrying
capacity have needed greater force, not less.
If there is anything that adds to the force required to insert or
remove BS1363 plugs, it is the shutter mechanism in the socket, which
I certainly wouldn't want to see removed.
Contact pressure makes almost no difference at all, although poor
quality plugs are likely to be more difficult to insert, as the pins
tend not to be profiled as accurately, particularly at the tips.

which in turn means that it's much harder to pull the plug
out, which
1) makes life more difficult for the elderly and / or arthritic

There are shaped plugs and plug pullers available for those with
special needs.

2) makes it more likely that the cable will pull out of the plug
rather than the plug out of the socket.

The plug is deliberately designed to make it very difficult to pull
out by yanking on the cable.
Again, cheap & nasty ones tend to be worse to remove, as they often
don't have a very good profile on the body of the plug, so are harder
to grip.

In the second case, this has the effect that if the plug is
badly wired, then the earth pulls out first rather than last.
And then has a good chance of making contact with one of the
others.

A good design would take into account lazy and / or incompetent
rewiring. It's no good saying "users ought to do this or that".
They won't.

Hence modern appliances almost all coming with moulded on plugs.
Fine until the cable frays or splits, and you need to replace it.
Then /someone/ needs to know how to wire a plug properly,

Not with cables with a plug on each end.


There's not much one can do to stop people who are incompetent enough to
make mains leads with plugs on both ends from doing stupid things.

I meant the sort of cable you get with a computer and many small appliances.

and because
moulded plugs have made this a rarer skill, it becomes more likely
that the appliance will be operated with a frayed and dangerous cable.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:48:16 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

750quid, last one I had.

In message , at 20:44:53 on
Wed, 6 Jun 2012, A.Lee remarked:
Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

For once, why not just say that you are wrong?

No doubt, you will reply with loads of reasons, mostly extremely
pedantic, like the comment to my previous post, that you are actually
right, and everyone else is wrong.

Hey, I tried the Insurance Company site (Hiscox) advertised all over
that "business advice" site which was linked to earlier. This isn't a
pedantic thing at all, there's a huge misunderstanding out there about
what these various forms of insurance cover.

Fill in the questionnaire and Hiscox recommends:

Main Risks:

You make a mistake - Professional Indemnity
Injury to Visitors - Public liability
Damage or loss of office equipment - Office insurance
Injury to you or staff - Personal accident

Other risks to consider:

Legal costs - Legal expenses
Hackers and Viruses - E-risks
Business disruption - Business Interruption

To suggest the "Public Liability" insurance more than scratches the
surface of what's required, is frankly very poor advice.
--
Roland Perry

In message op.wfhymccmloxewg@duncan-tosh, at 20:48:02 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
Tradesman Insurance doesn't normally include Professional Indemnity,
so I'm not quite sure where that herring was caught?

Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

"Indemnity
The Company will indemnify the Insured
against all sums that the Insured shall
become legally liable to pay as damages and
costs and expenses of claimants in respect
of accidental
a) injury to any person
b) loss of or damage to material property
c) nuisance or trespass obstruction loss of
amenities or interference with any right of
way light air or water
d) wrongful arrest detention imprisonment or
eviction of any person or invasion of the
right of privacy
occurring within the Territorial Limits during
the period of insurance and happening in
connection with the Business."

Is what mine says. What else where you expecting it to cover.

Without you telling me what the policy is called, I don't know quite
what to expect. I filled in the Hiscox questionnaire, and have reported
the results in another response.

....Which contradicts the broker's (or whoever they are) intro page:

http://www.bytestart.co.uk/what-is-p...insurance.html

but is more consistent with Hiscock's own backgrounder:

http://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-ins...ity-insurance/
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:27:08 on Wed, 6 Jun 2012,
Robin remarked:
Which it seems doesn't (by your own admission) include every form of
negligence such as:

I am sorry but I don't see the relevance of that comment. Most
comprehensive car policies will not cover you are driving an HGV. That
doesn't stop them being comprehensive car insurance policies. Alan
seemed to me merely to make the point that your argument about the
quantum of the premium needed to take account of the risks covered, and
that for some trades the cost of public liability insurance was much
higher.

I cannot use any heat inside premises - if I burn an house down
through using a gas torch inside, then i will have to pay myself,

The relevance is that the insurance is clearly not "comprehensive" even
for the relatively small subset of activities[1] which Alan conducts.
This is as a contrast to some of the wilder propositions that Public
Liability insurance covers "anything you mess up".

--
Roland Perry

In message , at
20:55:54 on Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Espen Koht remarked:
AFAIUI (from having been asked to procure it) PLI covers accidents and
injuries involving third-parties, which I believe is what you are
getting at. It's a supplemental cover for 'the public' for which the
first parties' insurance may not be adequate. cf. a visitor tripping
over a trailing lead put out by us (renting the premises) rather than
the museum itself.

That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
20:55:54 on Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Espen Koht remarked:
AFAIUI (from having been asked to procure it) PLI covers accidents and
injuries involving third-parties, which I believe is what you are
getting at. It's a supplemental cover for 'the public' for which the
first parties' insurance may not be adequate. cf. a visitor tripping
over a trailing lead put out by us (renting the premises) rather than
the museum itself.

That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".

It won't be covered by the PLI, but someone asking for a PLI presumably
does in the back of already having insurance to cover first-order
accidents like the one you describe.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 +0100, Espen Koht wrote:

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
20:55:54 on Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Espen Koht remarked:
AFAIUI (from having been asked to procure it) PLI covers accidents and
injuries involving third-parties, which I believe is what you are
getting at. It's a supplemental cover for 'the public' for which the
first parties' insurance may not be adequate. cf. a visitor tripping
over a trailing lead put out by us (renting the premises) rather than
the museum itself.

That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".

It won't be covered by the PLI, but someone asking for a PLI presumably
does in the back of already having insurance to cover first-order
accidents like the one you describe.

Having been involved with that sort of claim, that was covered by the
public liability insurance, not the professional indemnity insurance. It's
easy to tell as they where with seperate companys.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 06:48:56 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message op.wfhymccmloxewg@duncan-tosh, at 20:48:02 on Wed, 6 Jun
2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
Tradesman Insurance doesn't normally include Professional Indemnity,
so I'm not quite sure where that herring was caught?

Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

"Indemnity
The Company will indemnify the Insured
against all sums that the Insured shall
become legally liable to pay as damages and
costs and expenses of claimants in respect
of accidental
a) injury to any person
b) loss of or damage to material property
c) nuisance or trespass obstruction loss of
amenities or interference with any right of
way light air or water
d) wrongful arrest detention imprisonment or
eviction of any person or invasion of the
right of privacy
occurring within the Territorial Limits during
the period of insurance and happening in
connection with the Business."

Is what mine says. What else where you expecting it to cover.

Without you telling me what the policy is called, I don't know quite
what to expect.

That was AXA tradesmans.

I filled in the Hiscox questionnaire, and have reported the results in
another response.

...Which contradicts the broker's (or whoever they are) intro page:

http://www.bytestart.co.uk/what-is-p...insurance.html

but is more consistent with Hiscock's own backgrounder:

http://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-ins...ity-insurance/

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 06:48:45 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 20:44:53 on
Wed, 6 Jun 2012, A.Lee remarked:
Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

For once, why not just say that you are wrong?

No doubt, you will reply with loads of reasons, mostly extremely
pedantic, like the comment to my previous post, that you are actually
right, and everyone else is wrong.

Hey, I tried the Insurance Company site (Hiscox) advertised all over
that "business advice" site which was linked to earlier. This isn't a
pedantic thing at all, there's a huge misunderstanding out there about
what these various forms of insurance cover.

Fill in the questionnaire and Hiscox recommends:

Main Risks:

You make a mistake - Professional Indemnity

As in fail to fulfill the contract.

Injury to Visitors - Public liability
Damage or loss of office equipment - Office insurance
Injury to you or staff - Personal accident

Other risks to consider:

Legal costs - Legal expenses
Hackers and Viruses - E-risks
Business disruption - Business Interruption

To suggest the "Public Liability" insurance more than scratches the
surface of what's required, is frankly very poor advice.

That list doesn't mention damaging other peoples property.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:31:30 +0100, Sam Jones wrote:



"Duncan Wood" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:35:46 +0100, Sam Jones wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Fevric J. Glandules" considered Wed, 6 Jun 2012
08:55:40 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:

Our BS1363 fused plugs (and the sockets to match) are a masterpiece
of
design,

As area denial weapons they have few equals, it is true.

Lego.

As plugs they have a couple of issues. As I understand it
the use of square pins requires a much higher contact force,

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.
All the round-pin designs I've used of similar current carrying
capacity have needed greater force, not less.
If there is anything that adds to the force required to insert or
remove BS1363 plugs, it is the shutter mechanism in the socket, which
I certainly wouldn't want to see removed.
Contact pressure makes almost no difference at all, although poor
quality plugs are likely to be more difficult to insert, as the pins
tend not to be profiled as accurately, particularly at the tips.

which in turn means that it's much harder to pull the plug
out, which
1) makes life more difficult for the elderly and / or arthritic

There are shaped plugs and plug pullers available for those with
special needs.

2) makes it more likely that the cable will pull out of the plug
rather than the plug out of the socket.

The plug is deliberately designed to make it very difficult to pull
out by yanking on the cable.
Again, cheap & nasty ones tend to be worse to remove, as they often
don't have a very good profile on the body of the plug, so are harder
to grip.

In the second case, this has the effect that if the plug is
badly wired, then the earth pulls out first rather than last.
And then has a good chance of making contact with one of the
others.

A good design would take into account lazy and / or incompetent
rewiring. It's no good saying "users ought to do this or that".
They won't.

Hence modern appliances almost all coming with moulded on plugs.
Fine until the cable frays or splits, and you need to replace it.
Then /someone/ needs to know how to wire a plug properly,

Not with cables with a plug on each end.


There's not much one can do to stop people who are incompetent enough
to make mains leads with plugs on both ends from doing stupid things.

I meant the sort of cable you get with a computer and many small
appliances.


Those are normally plug to socket.

and because
moulded plugs have made this a rarer skill, it becomes more likely
that the appliance will be operated with a frayed and dangerous cable.

In message , at 09:54:23 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
Fill in the questionnaire and Hiscox recommends:

Main Risks:

You make a mistake - Professional Indemnity

As in fail to fulfill the contract.

Unless it's negligence (in the legal sense) you wouldn't be able to
claim. If you simply failed to turn up, that's something to be handled
by a normal contract dispute.

Injury to Visitors - Public liability
Damage or loss of office equipment - Office insurance
Injury to you or staff - Personal accident

Other risks to consider:

Legal costs - Legal expenses
Hackers and Viruses - E-risks
Business disruption - Business Interruption

To suggest the "Public Liability" insurance more than scratches the
surface of what's required, is frankly very poor advice.

That list doesn't mention damaging other peoples property.

Perhaps they don't offer that?
--
Roland Perry

On 07/06/2012 09:54, Duncan Wood quoted 80 lines to add one line of comment:
[...]

Please, the both of you, SNIP quotes!

Jon

In message , at 09:53:30 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

"Indemnity
The Company will indemnify the Insured
against all sums that the Insured shall
become legally liable to pay as damages and
costs and expenses of claimants in respect
of accidental
a) injury to any person
b) loss of or damage to material property
c) nuisance or trespass obstruction loss of
amenities or interference with any right of
way light air or water
d) wrongful arrest detention imprisonment or
eviction of any person or invasion of the
right of privacy
occurring within the Territorial Limits during
the period of insurance and happening in
connection with the Business."

Is what mine says. What else where you expecting it to cover.

Without you telling me what the policy is called, I don't know quite
what to expect.

That was AXA tradesmans.

Sounds useful, I'll have to ask my next set of builders if they have
anything like that! What's the annual premium, roughly?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
09:43:32 on Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Espen Koht remarked:
That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".

It won't be covered by the PLI, but someone asking for a PLI presumably
does in the back of already having insurance to cover first-order
accidents like the one you describe.

The museum might, but not every tradesman I suspect.

But we've got agreement that it's not PL, which is the main thing.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:53:30 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
Try getting a quote for "as a contractor I mess up, please pay the
damages", and let me know what the premium is.

"Indemnity
The Company will indemnify the Insured
against all sums that the Insured shall
become legally liable to pay as damages and
costs and expenses of claimants in respect
of accidental
a) injury to any person
b) loss of or damage to material property
c) nuisance or trespass obstruction loss of
amenities or interference with any right of
way light air or water
d) wrongful arrest detention imprisonment or
eviction of any person or invasion of the
right of privacy
occurring within the Territorial Limits during
the period of insurance and happening in
connection with the Business."

Is what mine says. What else where you expecting it to cover.

Without you telling me what the policy is called, I don't know quite
what to expect.

That was AXA tradesmans.

Sounds useful, I'll have to ask my next set of builders if they have
anything like that! What's the annual premium, roughly?

£220, inc temporary employes