Email list hosting service & mailing list manager


Re: Evidence of Insurability Greg Schmidt 26 Jan 2000 17:04 EST

When I was in private, the Federales always wanted to be named.  I was
concerned about it, too, but the broker said it didn't really matter.  The
certificate was for the job.  If an event took place at the job site, we had
proof that we were covered.  Damages to the facilities would be paid not to
us, but the agency.  After all, we didn't own them.  But if they caused
damage to their own facility, that was their responsibility.

For a sponsor of research, it's a liability issue.  Mostly, they're
concerned that we're covered for liability (bodily injury, etc.) on our
facilities.  The indemnification clauses in the contract will supposedly
cover their liability for our actions.  This runs into the "deep pocket"
mess.  A little company like the one I worked for had a significant amount
of liability coverage.  Most of the contracts required at least $5 million
(1988).  If an individual tried to sue the owner due to our negligence, our
$5 million would be tapped first.  If it were the owner's negligence, ours
wouldn't be touched.

So really, we were not co-insuring the agency or sponsor.  That's how it was
explained to me.

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Erickson" <xxxxxx@BC.EDU>
To: <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence of Insurability

> I have always thought this to be a very bad idea. Evidence of being
insured is
> very different from naming the sponsor as a co-insured. I would definitely
> check with the institutional insurance office. I have always understood
naming
> a co-insured to be extremely expensive and expands the potential for
exposure
> to liability.
>
> Steve Erickson
>
> Greg Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Your insurance broker does these all the time.  If you're self-insured,
> > contact the manager of insurance.  S/He'll take it from there.
> >
> > Greg Schmidt
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "spettyjo" <xxxxxx@HSC.UNT.EDU>
> > To: <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:34 PM
> > Subject: Evidence of Insurability
> >
> > > Hello Everyone -    Hope "ya'll" aren't all snowed in.
> > >
> > > A little help please -
> > >
> > > A PI at our institution is submitting a grant to the Glaucoma
Foundation
> > > and there is a stipulation that our institution place them on our
> > > general liability policy or name them as an additional insured.  Has
> > > anyone ever heard of this before?  How did you address this? Thanks
for
> > > any help.
> > >
> > >
> > > Shelly R. Pettyjohn
> > > Pre-award Grants/Funding Specialist
> > > Univ. of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth
> > > 817 735-2561
> > > fax 817 735-5485
> > > email: xxxxxx@hsc.unt.edu
> > >
>

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================