Ok, we have our first organization rejecting the new Certificate of Insurance due to the cancellation clause. They are requiring 30 day notice. However, they also rejected it because we abbreviated Corporation to Corp. We dealt with them last year for a different client and they were such a pain that the client said it wasn't worth the money for the job. They only contracted her for about a $500 cleaning job, I think. It's an apartment complex and they want an Additional insured listing that's about 4 lines long just for the names (but don't abbreviate anything).
We're going to try to tell them that the policy doesn't include a 30-day cancellation clause, thus we can't satisfy that requirement. We'll see what they say. They usually just fax us a repeat request.
That is almost always part of the problem with Certs requested - dealing with an organization or individual who knows nothing about what they are asking for. Don't confuse them with the facts...
If you asked them for something to be included in THEIR contract -and provide it in writing -that wasn't a part of it.....what do you think they would say/do? They need to look at it from the other end of the process.....to understand what they are asking for.
Yes, It is especially frustrating. Usually the people you talk to have no authority or understanding, just the instructions they are given and told to follow. They also know that there are other agents out there who just sign the damned thing. Why can't you?
Quote from: Jan Regnier on June 08, 2010, 01:30:44 PM
That is almost always part of the problem with Certs requested - dealing with an organization or individual who knows nothing about what they are asking for. Don't confuse them with the facts...
If you asked them for something to be included in THEIR contract -and provide it in writing -that wasn't a part of it.....what do you think they would say/do? They need to look at it from the other end of the process.....to understand what they are asking for.
One of the CIC instructors that I had told us the story of a utility company that needed to run a gas line through his back yard and presented him with a contract that they wanted him to sign. It included a hold harmless agreement, stating that he would not only hold the gas company harmless for anything they did, but also indemnify the gas company in case they did damage to his property or caused injury as a result.
Apparently it was a standard form that they always used for homeowners and that no one ever questioned before and always signed. It came as huge shock to them when he turned the tables and demanded that THEY sign the hold harmless with indemnity clause in his favor. He didn't care as the gas line wasn't for his benefit. Apparently it delayed the project for several months. I love it! ;D
We have had insurance company contracts that have had similar issues....we have always confronted them when this occurs and most of the time they will strike out those elements....but the fact that they are there to start with isn't good. Many people just don't bother to read the requirements when confronted with a contract.... too much work. AND lawyers (and accountants) don't understand insurance....but advise their clients on insurance issues!
Had an underground contractor who lost money on job because the guy who bid it didn't read the insurance requirements in the bid package. Turned out they had to lay sewer and water pipes under rail road tracks. The cost of the RR Liability insurance caused them to lose their profit on that job.
I created a document for the owner to give to all his bidders that had a nice neat list of things to look for and ask about BEFORE they bid the next jobs. It's now being used by several agencies in our area. I should have copyrighted the darned thing!