General liability insurance requires vehicle policy?

LordFarkwad

LordFarkwad

Branched out member
Location
Chatham Co.
Was checking on a general liability policy with my current car/home insurance company to cover me while I am doing some residential tree removal, and they won't give me a policy unless I have a "Business Auto Policy".

Is this typical? I told them I wasn't doing any hauling at all. And no climbing either. Just putting low-risk trees on the ground.
 
Transporting saws/tools to a site, for sure.

So do I need a Business Auto Policy since I carry a laptop to and from work every day? Clearly not, but why/how do they make a distinction??
 
It would be nice to have a policy, but to be honest, this is as much of a marketing effort as anything; that is, I can get allot more opportunities if I have some kind of coverage (I'm not going to take a job that has a non-negligible chance of hitting a house/building/etc.).

Does anyone know of where I can look for a policy without having to include my vehicle? I don't want to change my current auto insurance setup now because I get a discounted rate by having it combined with another family vehicle. I lose that if I put my truck on a business policy.
 
Also, to fill out the picture a little more, I have a full time job, but love cutting wood and want to make it into a second income stream. That's the deal.

I'm becoming discouraged from what seems like everyone wanting to "get their cut" of someone simply wanting to convert sweat to money; lawyers, tax man, gubment, etc., etc. I knew the system wasn't exactly friendly to small business, but good grief...it's worse than I thought.
 
A couple of insights...maybe

I always had independent agents shop my insurance needs. ONe year my agent told me that thecomnpany I had been with for a year or two changed their policy. If I owned a dump truck they wouldn't write my liability insurance. Their way of changing the focus of their business. My agent found other insurance...cheaper too!

Be careful. Having a personal vehicle insured for personal use and not business use could be a dangerous economic plan. Ask you agent when might happen if you're doing 'work' with your personal vehicle and have an accident. They might deny protecting you in case of an accident.

Don't try any 'weasel moves'
 
What is a 'weasel move'?

Are you saying "accident" meaning having a tree land on my head, or get in a wreck going to the site? Or even hitting or the truck being hit by something at the site?

I'm not in any way employing the vehicle on a job except to transport my body and tools to and from the site; no anchoring or pulling or anything.
 
A long time ago, a groundie went to jail after being t-boned by someone. He had someone else's pain pills on board for his broken tooth.

Not his fault to get hit. Paid the consequences.

If you have a big settlement involved, insurance companies investigate.
 
Once you leave your regular job and start to drive to a side job you'll need commercial vehicle insurance as well as business liability insurance. It's called 'deviating'. If you don't you're exposing yourself to huge legal and financial risk.

Not having commercial insurance is an example of a 'weasel move'...sneaking...furtive...trying to get away with something...weaseling.

The system isn't setup to ruin you or keep you from opening a company. The same rules apply to other businesses too. If you can't afford the overhead you'll understand why full time companies charge what they do for the same work.
 
Ah, I gotcha.

So what does someone running without insurance actually "get away" with if they have to live with the constant threat hanging over their head that, if luck turns against them, they will be left without house, home, vehicles, and a good name/reputation? Not to mention the deficit of opportunities they will be left with as a result of clients with brains not using them, since they carry no insurance?

Seems like I've always heard these as being the benefits of having any kind of non-compulsory insurance for anything, so it would follow that someone who chooses to operate without it is mainly themselves a disservice, and also any person dumb or willfully-ignorant enough to use them.

I can't really see having ill will towards someone who has either more guts or less brains than I do; it might be more pitiful, if anything.
 
I hope that you don't think I'm against you. Just sharing knowledge that I attained over my career. At the3 beginning I didn't have insurance because I didn't understand the consequences.

A legal ruling against you could bankrupt you. How would your family weather that storm?
 
Tom Dunlap said:
I hope that you don't think I'm against you. Just sharing knowledge that I attained over my career. At the3 beginning I didn't have insurance because I didn't understand the consequences.

A legal ruling against you could bankrupt you. How would your family weather that storm?
Click to expand...

Naw I gotcha. Hence this thread, at all.

I and many others, however, feel there are many non-producers in our society that are simply cashing in on others' effort. That's the way it is. Litigiousness.
 
I've been involved in a few litigations. On each side. I'm happy to have the system available to me.

There are examples of silly, and over compensated, litigation that gets our attention. Like any system though they are the smallest portion.

Over compensated CEO's should be the focus of our ire not some small potato player gaming the system.
 
What gets me is that I want to do something to contribute, and there are many barriers to entry simply because of potential litigation that no amount of waivers can avoid (insurance this and that, workers comp, auto policies, etc etc etc). But if I wanted a dern food stamp, I could've probably already had my first set in the mail had I started that process at the same time I started looking at doing this.
 
Tom Dunlap said:
I've been involved in a few litigations. On each side. I'm happy to have the system available to me.

There are examples of silly, and over compensated, litigation that gets our attention. Like any system though they are the smallest portion.

Over compensated CEO's should be the focus of our ire not some small potato player gaming the system.
Click to expand...

You are possibly an honest person who was either dealt with unjustly or who was accused of doing so, and so the system did indeed - hopefully - find in your favor. That is wonderful if that is the case, and the purpose of the law.

However, I have a feeling that if unneeded barriers to entry were lowered, these CEO's you speak of would have a tougher time than they currently do. I mean, part of the issue is that people - regular ol' Joe Schmoes - don't care, by and large, what a CEO does or makes, as long as they get the largest dividend and the biggest return. "Who cares how the dude treats employees! Gimme dat money!"
 
I didn't always get treated well, or end up with a settlement in my favor. But there is a system available.

I'll leave the CEO talk for the Off Topic forum. It's one comment short of being political.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom