Yes, if you ask them, most sponsors are really just looking for proof that we
have adequaste insurance, and in such cases we gladly provide them with a
certification or a letter from our insurance office. We do, however, resist
those instances in which sponsors have really wanted to be names as a co-insured
on our policies/insurance program. We have never agreed to the co-insured
language in an agreement --- to the best of my knowledge (I also learned a long
time ago to never say never!).

Steve

Greg Schmidt wrote:

> 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")
> ======================================================================