Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: Re: Limit of Liability[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: wai(--nospam--at)euken.com
- Subject: Fwd: Re: Limit of Liability
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 06 Aug 1997 14:56:32 GMT
Limits fo Liability (LOL) are valid in some situations. However, two common tests that they many times must pass are: They must be negotiated; and They must be a reasonable amount. The Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) in developing LOL language accomplished this by setting the LOL to the LARGER of your fee or $50,000, or an amount agreed to before beginning work. A blank space can be provided to insert another amount. Offering to agree to a different amount and providing a blank for such an amount was judged to make the LOL negotiated. A fee/premium (based on a % of additional coverage/limit) is charged by a number of engineers for limits above the offered limits to both temper those inclined to ask for extreme limits on small projects and in recognition of the risk involved relative to the reward. This really helps to connect the client with the cost of providing coverage. Project insurance is also an option abailable to many. Also, E&O insurers may provide rebates to those they cover for LOL clauses. Having the LOL clause initialed by the client adds credibility that the LOL was negotiated. The consensus of case law as related by attorneys, and opinions provided E&O insurers support that $50,000 is a "reasonable" amount. A LOL set to too small an amount (fee only) may prevent you from being able to be quickly dropped from a claim in summary judgement -- which of course is the objective in avoiding frivolous or "shot-gun" claims. A too small LOL may also be thrown out all together. Structural Engineering is a risky business! Ed Dean <---- Begin Included Message ----> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:48:17 -0700 From: "Dennis S. Wish PE" <wish(--nospam--at)cyberg8t.com> Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Return-Path: null(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: RE: Limit of Liability To: "'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org'" <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From a previous post Jeff wrote: Back to the issue of limiting your Liability to your fee. I can not >remember when I have had a client agree to this. Of course this would=20 be >great to get, but this seems somewhat unrealistic to me. I would never=20 sign >such a contract. I have found that this clause is most often presented=20 by >engineers that do not have any insurance. " I restrict my liability to my fee's less expenses and have done this for = the past ten years or so. I make sure that every one of my clients reads = the terms and conditions and initials each page. I make the terms very = clear and in words that every layperson can understand. I want no = questions left undisclosed once the contract returns to my office. To date, every one of my clients have signed the work agreement. I once = checked with an attorney who reviewed it and simply asked if I felt that = I was sufficiently covered. He advised me that there could always be a = time when it could be disputed given enough money to proceed.=20 There are only one or two others in my area that have E&O coverage and = it is because they do work for local municipalities that require it. = None of us have the resources to pay up to 15% of our gross income for = insurance - not with the 30%+ that the state and Feds take off the top = (not even considering health insurance, auto insurance and homeowners = insurance). . I have been threatened on only one occasion - not as the defendent, but = pulled in as one of the related fields to the testing lab being sued. = Without E&O, I was dropped from the suit since I did not have the deep = pockets to try and collect from. E&O insurance is not an option with my one man office. Than combined = with my big mouth forced the testing lab's attorney to drop ONLY me from = the named associates draged into the claim. Possibly I have been lucky, but I don't see that I have much choice in = the matter if I want to continue to work competivly and to feed my = family.=20 Dennis Wish PE <---- End Included Message ----> --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [126.96.36.199]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA14268 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 03:44:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kim.teleport.com by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id ia017090; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 01:42:22 -0700 Received: from 188.8.131.52 (ip-pdx07-19.teleport.com [184.108.40.206]) by kim.teleport.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA01857; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 01:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 01:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199704090839.BAA01857(--nospam--at)kim.teleport.com> From: edean(--nospam--at)teleport.com Subject: RE: Limit of Liability To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Mailer: AIR Mail 3.X (SPRY, Inc.) Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Info: [SEAOC] Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Precedence: list X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org [seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org] __________________________________________________ Richard Lewis, P.E. Missionary TECH Team rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org The service mission like-minded Christian organizations may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: Re: Limit of Liability
- Next by Subject: Fwd: Re: Limit of Liability
- Previous by thread: Fwd: Re: Limit of Liability
- Next by thread: Fwd: Re: Limit of Liability