Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Survey, final result (Corrected)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis S. Wish <wish(--nospam--at)>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 6:24 PM
Subject: RE: Survey, final result (Corrected)

Dennis> What you stated was "Another element I would propose is mandatory E&O insurance (just like the requirements to register a car here). "  It does not matter what you believe your goal is, this approach directly affects any engineer in private practice who does not have or is not able to obtain E&O coverage.

[Bill Allen]

I believe mandatory car insurance has gone a long way to making California drivers more responsible.

Do you believe that someone practicing structural engineering who performs a negligent act should not be responsible? Without insurance and either little or hidden assets, this liability will/does fall on the shoulders of others.

Moonlighters are not necessarily the problem to our competition. After twelve years in private practice I loose very few jobs to moonlighters. In fact, if a client wants to use someone who moonlights it's usually because they don't want to spend the money to be represented during conventional business hours. In this case, I would tend to turn down their business because we can't educate them on the pitfalls of dealing with part time help. They generally end up coming back for help to clean up the mess they got themselves into.

[Bill Allen]

I am not only referring to moonlighters. What about the Architect and Civil Engineer (Civil-Civil) who occasionally does structural engineering? Most insurance policies for Architects and Civil-Civils exclude the practice of structural engineering (for a reason-the cost is higher). If these people had E&O insurance, it would be made very clear to them that their rates would be much higher if they wanted to do the occasional structural design. Most (all) of my Architectural clients are insured and never, never attempt to pretend to be a structural engineer (they claim that's why they pay me the big bucks). One reason is that their insurance forbids it.

Wouldn't it be nice if all of your Architectural clients carried insurance and were held accountable for their negligence?

Mandatory insurance coverage never works. For a staunch conservative I am surprised that you would want more controls of our state licensing agency (the Dept of Consumer Affairs) by allowing them to mandate E&O coverage.

I suggest you, too, stick to what you know. Your first suggestion for a mandatory one question test was damn good. Work with that and get off the E&O bandwagon. The mandatory problem will be a great way to weed out the incompetents. Let the clients looking for a bargain deal with moonlighters.



Bill Allen