[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: FW: Insurance for contractors? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 16:31:32 PDT 2009


Michael,

When I ran my consultancy as a limited liability company, we kept the normal
range of insurance policies, including professional and public liability
insurance policies.

If you wish to be treated as a professional and work for the big end of
town, these are a necessary business expense.

Mind you, we didn't need to utilise the policies, which to my mind is a good
thing.


Bruce



>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> > [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> > P. Gerlek
> > Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2009 3:03 AM
> > To: OSGeo Discussions
> > Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Insurance for contractors?
> >
> > In the past I've hired some people for contract or consultant
> > work (both open source projects and more general stuff) --
> > generally these people have been independent, one-man shops
> > found by word of mouth and reputation, as opposed to hiring
> > someone from an agency.
> >
> > I'm getting pushback now from the administrative side of my
> > company saying that any contractor I hire needs to have proof
> > of insurance.  I understand the legal reasons for this, but
> > I'm wondering how many of you out there actually have
> > business/contractors insurance?  Do companies you work for
> > insist on it, or not?  And how many of you are formally set
> > up as LLCs or sole proprietorships or such?
> >
> > [while this is likely a US-centric issue from the hiring
> > side, I'm interested in international responses too since
> > I've hired some foreigners as well over the years]
> >
> > -mpg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090901/96ddd22c/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list