[Chameleon]

Just got the new forms today...

UNDER EXCLUSIONS

SE30 Excluding Damage to property Being worked upon
The Company shall not indemnify the Insured in repect of any claim arising from or in connection with Damage to Property on which the Insured or his Employees are actually working.

Please, could someone tell me is this the norm!

I stopped having Public Liability for about three years as I could not see the sense, if this type of clause in in it!

For the last two years, I was told, this clause was not in it!
Either I misunderstood or I was lied to!

Comment and views would be appreciated, regards Steve

[macmac]

That "property" referes to the window/gutter/con' roof etc that you are actualy working on at the time. i.e.
You put the window through with your pole or ladder, the one you are working on, then you are liable for the cost.

However, if your ladder blows over & smashes the roof of the custy's car in, or the conservatory roof, then you have a valid claim.

That's how I've been explained it.

[macmac]

You will have to pay a bit more to get "propery being worked on" included in the policy.

It is pretty much the norm to exclude it in a standard policy.

Tony

[Chameleon]

  many thanks

[Alex Gardiner]

AXA underwriters are about the only firm offering cover for the property worked on. This only covers window cleaning and not façade/gutter cleaning and there is a £500 excess.

[foxy]

i asked my insurance broker about the possibilty of being covered for 'accidental damage' and he said that for window cleaners it was difficult to find.
i was also under the impression that the 'public liability' cover was for if a member of the public/passerby tripped or fell over a bucket, tripped over a hose or a ladder fell on them. i thought the insurance was to cover medical and legal fees of the claimant.

[foxy]

that's why you get a million (or 2 million) of public liability cover. a broken window or windscreen, gutter or fascia would not cost remotely anything like that amount; but if you were found liable for seriously injuring someone, and had to pay for their medical expenses, loss of earings and legal bills. that could really add up. if you weren't insured the injured party would have no financial redress. the public liability cover is to cover the public, not ourselves.

[Chameleon]

  Thanks thats very useful information!
I thought it might be the case, anyhow it's being paid tomorrow, regardless!
cheers, one and all!

[Ravensford]

that's why you get a million (or 2 million) of public liability cover. a broken window or windscreen, gutter or fascia would not cost remotely anything like that amount; but if you were found liable for seriously injuring someone, and had to pay for their medical expenses, loss of earings and legal bills. that could really add up. if you weren't insured the injured party would have no financial redress. the public liability cover is to cover the public, not ourselves.

WoW - Expensive Earrings then!

[foxy]