# General and professional liability insurance



## Sifu (Jun 29, 2020)

Poll-for those who do private plan review for yourselves:

As a private entity, not an LLC or incorporated entity, when providing a plan review in a consulting capacity, no stamps or approvals, just providing observations to the building official for his review for him to approve or deny, do you carry general liability or professional liability insurance?


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 30, 2020)

Depends, as a licensed architect I carry both and require a disclaimer of use of my opinion from the official.


----------



## Sifu (Jun 30, 2020)

If I were providing a design, or "stamping" them or otherwise approving them I would think it necessary.  I am nether approving nor disapproving, just pointing out where the design might deviate from code.  Just doing a review for code compliance to be used by the AHJ at his discretion I don't think I need it.  I carried it as a GC many moons ago, but that is a totally different animal.  I am just no sure any liability or E & O insurance is needed.  The closest category for policy needs is architectural services, which is way beyond what I provide.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 30, 2020)

In CA if licensed you cannot give an opinion without a contract.


----------



## jontakor (Jun 25, 2021)

Sifu said:


> Poll-for those who do private plan review for yourselves:
> 
> As a private entity, not an LLC or incorporated entity, when providing a plan review in a consulting capacity, no stamps or approvals, just providing observations to the building official for his review for him to approve or deny, do you carry general liability or professional liability insurance?


Yes it will be on the safe side to have general liability insurances, previously i was on a same boat and was using general liability insurance


----------



## Mark K (Jun 25, 2021)

Correction::` in California you can give an opinion without a contract.   What the licensing law says is  that with few exceptions you need to have a contract if providing professional services.  Given the role of a non-employee plan checker working for the jurisdiction I would believe that
Errors and Omissions insurance would be a bigger Concern although I would believe that the liability is very small.

If you are an employee of the jurisdiction in California you have almost total immunity if performing you job.    Government employees concerned about their professional liability do not know what they are talking about.

I would be interested in understanding what type of contracts are used by engineers and architects providing  plan checking services when working for the building department.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 26, 2021)

I am required to have General, Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) and Car Insurance, all protecting the jurisdiction.​


----------



## ICE (Jun 26, 2021)

Mark K said:


> If you are an employee of the jurisdiction in California you have almost total immunity if performing you job.    Government employees concerned about their professional liability do not know what they are talking about.


Your continual insulting government employees taints your worth as a source of knowledge on any subject.  Hurling insults in this forum is a misguided attempt at revenge.  The people that hurt you do not participate here.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 27, 2021)

It is a fact that California Government Code Sections 820 to 823 address the issue of liability of government employees.  Pay particular attention to Sections 820.2 and 821.4

I have been told by a lawyer that even if somebody attempts to sue a government  employee in California these causes of action are regularly thrown out before they can go to trial.  The City attorney should be able to verify this.

My understanding is that in most other states the net effect is the same even if the California statutes do not apply.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 28, 2021)

Mark K said:


> It is a fact that California Government Code Sections 820 to 823 address the issue of liability of government employees.  Pay particular attention to Sections 820.2 and 821.4
> 
> I have been told by a lawyer that even if somebody attempts to sue a government  employee in California these causes of action are regularly thrown out before they can go to trial.  The City attorney should be able to verify this.
> 
> My understanding is that in most other states the net effect is the same even if the California statutes do not apply.


Not everyone is a Government Employee.
I am a Contracted Consultant, NOT covered by Employee Liability Immunity.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 28, 2021)

While consultants may need E&O insurance the question then becomes how can they shape their contract with agencies to limit liability exposure.  Is there a model contract used by those firms providing plan checking services?  

What advice do E&O insurers provide to firms providing contract plan checking and inspection services? How do insurance premiums for independent plan checkers compare to those that the designers of buildings pay?

My impression is that independent plan checking companies are not sued with the same frequency as  Engineers of Record.  Is this true?  Appellate court rulings could be informative.


----------



## jontakor (Jun 29, 2021)

Mark K said:


> While consultants may need E&O insurance the question then becomes how can they shape their contract with agencies to limit liability exposure.  Is there a model contract used by those firms providing plan checking services?
> 
> What advice do E&O insurers provide to firms providing contract plan checking and inspection services? How do insurance premiums for independent plan checkers compare to those that the designers of buildings pay?
> 
> My impression is that independent plan checking companies are not sued with the same frequency as  Engineers of Record.  Is this true?  Appellate court rulings could be informative.


I think they can still sue independent companies depend on the scenario


----------

