A Liability Question

[cabinetman]

The first bid I received for laying pavers for a patio (see this thread), was from a handyman that has done extensive work for my neighbor. Besides general fix-it stuff around that house, he did a great job on several areas with pavers.

My concern is with a liability factor of him working on my premesis. I'm sure he's not licensed as a business, or he likely does not have Liability/Property damage insurance, or Workmans Comp, or even proof of a self insured plan. It's not that I'm worried about damage to my dirt, or a paver breaking, but rather him hurting himself, or GFB, dying.

I do have complete Homeowners insurance, but I doubt it covers a situation like this. I think about all the paperwork I have to show to work in someone's home or place of business. His bid may be the lowest, and his work may be the best, but my better judgment tells me that the risk may be too great. Am I right?
.

[Daryl]

Maybe call your insurance agent and have a rider put on for this guy.

[LCHIEN]

maybe a talk with your insurance agent about what your policy covers will put some of your fears to rest.
A paverstone layer and general handyman is probably going to be in OK health exp if he has done extenisve work for your neighbor.
He is at lots less risk than say a roofer, painter, etc because he won't be using ladders or dangerous equipment. Ladders I suspect are one of the big culprits in handyman/home repair contactors injuries. power tool second. he should be using neither.

If your insurance coverage is OK you may wish to take a chace on this lower risk guy.

[Coachman]

Yes, this is a good question, I've run into it before! State laws are different, here in MA as the home owner I'm responsible for people getting hurt on my property. Before I have a contractor do any work, I make sure they have insurance.
If they don't have it, they don't get the job. In todays lawsuit happy environment I feel its just to risky no matter how nice the guy is or how good a job he does.
My home owners insurance covers this, but if he did get hurt and made a claim against my insurance, who do you think is going to pay for this in the long run?

Steve

[RAFlorida]

Steve is right, the home owner ends up in the long run paying.

Here in Florida the insurances premium have gone up leaps and bounds. Not because of what this thread is about, but the weather we get. If some one gets hurt on your property, yes usually the insurance will handle it; but then your premiums go up, as in auto collisions. If the contractor/handyman doesn't have insurance, we do not hire them.

[LCHIEN]

guys with insurance will charge you more than guys w/o insurance, so you end up paying for it either way.

the likelihood of a guy getting hurt on your property is small but finite. That's why you have the insurance. If youre paying a guy with insurance, then you are not only paying your insurance but his, too.

Anyway, its a risk and reward issue. Like I said before, if they are doing riskier work, I sure like to see that they have their own insurance.

[Habe]

What about this scene?

How would you like it if an uninsured cabinet maker beat you out on a job because he had no insurance and thus could bid lower.
I look at it as I am legal so I want legal workers on my property.

Habe

[cabinetman]

What about this scene?

How would you like it if an uninsured cabinet maker beat you out on a job because he had no insurance and thus could bid lower.
I look at it as I am legal so I want legal workers on my property.

Habe

That happens all the time. Unfortunately many clients never check it out. I just went through that in getting bids from plumbers to do our sewer hook up. Of the bidders that did not/could not show the proper paperwork, their bids weren't the lowest bids.
.

[dbhost]

You *could* always simply ask the bidder to provide proof of insurance. Generally speaking, most guys that advertise themselves as a "handyman" are going to be uninsured, and probably just working for cash under the table sort of stuff. I try not to do business with people like that because the risk is too great. HOWEVER, There are times, such as landscaping work, where I will hire a lawn guy, who may, or may not be insured. Most likely not, but that is covered under my homeowners coverage. Now try this on for size...

Same sort of ethic. You see the high school football team doing a car wash for a fund raiser for new uniforms for the year. You get your truck washed, and little Johnny (that obscene little turkey we have all heard so much about) manages SOMEHOW to gash his hand on your license plate. Who should be responsible for his medical bills? You since it was your truck he cut himself on? the school district for having him out there in the first place? His parents because he's their responsibility to teach not to cut himself? The property owner that let the school hold their fund raiser on?

I have my opinions like so many others, but it is a tricky dilema.

[Ed62]

I'm not sure this would work, but I don't know why it wouldn't. If your only concern is his well being while working on your property, there might be an out for you. Draw up a simple contract, agreeing to a set price for the work (defined) to be done. He agrees to not hold you or your insurance liable in case something like you're concerned about, happens. Although I'm not a lawyer, I think it would hold up in court because there's something in it for both of you (you're covered, and he gets the job).

Ed

[LCHIEN]

You *could* always simply ask the bidder to provide proof of insurance. Generally speaking, most guys that advertise themselves as a "handyman" are going to be uninsured, and probably just working for cash under the table sort of stuff. I try not to do business with people like that because the risk is too great. HOWEVER, There are times, such as landscaping work, where I will hire a lawn guy, who may, or may not be insured. Most likely not, but that is covered under my homeowners coverage. Now try this on for size...

Same sort of ethic. You see the high school football team doing a car wash for a fund raiser for new uniforms for the year. You get your truck washed, and little Johnny (that obscene little turkey we have all heard so much about) manages SOMEHOW to gash his hand on your license plate. Who should be responsible for his medical bills? You since it was your truck he cut himself on? the school district for having him out there in the first place? His parents because he's their responsibility to teach not to cut himself? The property owner that let the school hold their fund raiser on?

I have my opinions like so many others, but it is a tricky dilema.

how about

The state for having a sharp license plate made in an uninsured state prison facility using old out of date metalworking/stamping machines with poorly maintained deburring/deflashing equipment.
The auto maker for having failed to protect the plate from meeting unprotected persons with warning labels or guards.

[jonmulzer]

I'm not sure this would work, but I don't know why it wouldn't. If your only concern is his well being while working on your property, there might be an out for you. Draw up a simple contract, agreeing to a set price for the work (defined) to be done. He agrees to not hold you or your insurance liable in case something like you're concerned about, happens. Although I'm not a lawyer, I think it would hold up in court because there's something in it for both of you (you're covered, and he gets the job).

Ed

Any decent lawyer would poke a hole in that in an instant for the simple reason that piece of paper is you admitting that you were aware he does not have insurance. Sadly, this is the type of society we live in......

[herb fellows]

If the law says you can only hire someone with insurance, and you hire someone without it, you are breaking the law. Any agreement made outside the law is automatically null and void.
It's kind of like telling your kid it's ok if he drinks at less than the minimum age. It may be fine with you, but the law will not say it's ok because his parent said it is. The law is the law, period.
That's always been my understanding.

As previously stated by others, I'm no lawyer, but I assume we have a few on this website, what's their opinion?

[Ed62]

Any decent lawyer would poke a hole in that in an instant for the simple reason that piece of paper is you admitting that you were aware he does not have insurance.

Unless the following is true, I don't see a problem with admitting you knew he didn't have insurance.

If the law says you can only hire someone with insurance, and you hire someone without it, you are breaking the law.

Is that what the law says? I doubt it, of course I don't really know.

Ed

[Gator95]

Check with your insurance agent, or better yet, your family lawyer. This stuff varies wildly from state to state.