Insurance ??s

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz

Carpal tunnel level member
Location
Minturn
I’ve been an “employee” my entire working career, and now I’m looking for insurance for my LLC/contract climbing future. I know prices likely vary by location, but ballpark what are people paying annually, and what things should I look for, or run from? Thanks.
 
So far I’ve found 145/month and 280/month for very similar coverages (1 million). Some won’t even cover “tree services” period. I’m not good with insurance language, so this process has been a challenge.
 
1-1.5 k seems to be on par. Once really money is made and there are employees they base it on gross and gross payroll. Pay employees less hourly and give huge bonuses
 
What’s also strange to me is some agents ask if I’ll be climbing or not….. I want to get what is legitimate, in case it’s needed, and for the jobs that ask for proof, I will have adequate coverage….
 
Last edited:
I was also told, the ins. co's stipulate, "pruning"?, or "felling"?, and the price for coverage varies pretty astronomically
 
@MikoDel;
Maybe I should know this automatically, but which category would you believe to have the higher insurance rates? The "Pruning" category or the "Felling" category? Thanks in advance. Tim
 
TimBr said:
@MikoDel;
Maybe I should know this automatically, but which category would you believe to have the higher insurance rates? The "Pruning" category or the "Felling" category? Thanks in advance. Tim
Click to expand...
In PA, a tree service is classified as performing “pruning, trimming, treatment, or fumigation of trees”. Felling might be a different category, but I believe that would encompass a logging company rather than a tree service.
 
TimBr said:
Thanks, @Reach. Would you expect that a "logging" operation would have much higher insurance rates than a "tree service" operation? Thanks, in advance. Tim
Click to expand...
I would expect that “logging” would be less expensive actually, as most loggers work in the woods where there is nothing to damage. Hard to say though, I’m not an insurance agent.
 
Thanks, again, @Reach. For some reason I was thinking logging would be more costly to insure because of the way it seems more hazardous for the workers on the ground. I had not thought about the increased likelihood of property damage in residential tree care. Thanks for your time, I appreciate it. Tim
 
Reach said:
I would expect that “logging” would be less expensive actually, as most loggers work in the woods where there is nothing to damage. Hard to say though, I’m not an insurance agent.
Click to expand...
I'd guess differently.. There are ALOT of rules to follow with logging, roads, critical areas, timber trespass, sub contractors and all that stuff.
In washington we have to answer to the Department of Labor and Industries. They are the licensing body for contractors or any business license. They review insurance requirements, bonds, violation of contracts etc. They also are a state run workers comp agency, in which we (employers) pay a hourly fee per rate class, and they have their own rules for each class. I have about 4 different rate classes, office, shop maintenance, landscape, and tree removal. My big gripe is how freakin ridiculous it is.. The shop rate is for all day or nothing, I can break up landscape and tree removal, but have to use tree removal for pruning anything with the word 'tree' even though 'pruning and shaping for landscape or ornamental purposes' is allowed for landscapers. I can cut a row of 50' leyland cypress in half and call it hedging, but I can't hand prune a weeping japanese maple with snips (has to be the higher class of tree removal!). They have no definition of tree vs shrub, and it all is subjective to the 'class manager'. Felling has to be 'machine assisted' under 'tree removal', but one cannot Fell a tree with wedges and a pull line!, 'machine assisted' was verbally defined as a crane removal, (WTF?).. Felling is logging period to them, unless you have a separate 'Farm Labor Contractor' business license, and then you can do pre commerical thinning, trail work, and non commercial tree felling. Also you have to submit a proposal PER JOB, before a quote is given to L'n'I. Landscape job hours can be partitioned with tree removal hours on the same job.

Without looking up the rates from memory
Landscape $1.80 per worker per hour
Tree removal $4.50-$5 per worker per hour (cant fell a spar!)
Logging $18-20 per worker per hour!
Non commercial timber thinning, felling for forest health and fuel reduction $2.50 per worker per hour!!!!

Shit adds up, and if you are audited and found to have Felled a tree they find a comparable company with gross, and size, hit you up for the difference with penalties and interest for all the years they look at.

I know this isn't general liability but workers comp

One general liability policy did dictate 'Felling trees up to 150' had to be accompanied with a 'pull line' and wedges. Cannot occur within City limits'. There was no price difference with that verbiage.
 
I believe logging requires much much more insurance. Also from what I’ve gathered, certain providers will lump you into a “logger” category based on number of trees removed from one certain location or per day….
 
evo said:
I'd guess differently.. There are ALOT of rules to follow with logging, roads, critical areas, timber trespass, sub contractors and all that stuff.
In washington we have to answer to the Department of Labor and Industries. They are the licensing body for contractors or any business license. They review insurance requirements, bonds, violation of contracts etc. They also are a state run workers comp agency, in which we (employers) pay a hourly fee per rate class, and they have their own rules for each class. I have about 4 different rate classes, office, shop maintenance, landscape, and tree removal. My big gripe is how freakin ridiculous it is.. The shop rate is for all day or nothing, I can break up landscape and tree removal, but have to use tree removal for pruning anything with the word 'tree' even though 'pruning and shaping for landscape or ornamental purposes' is allowed for landscapers. I can cut a row of 50' leyland cypress in half and call it hedging, but I can't hand prune a weeping japanese maple with snips (has to be the higher class of tree removal!). They have no definition of tree vs shrub, and it all is subjective to the 'class manager'. Felling has to be 'machine assisted' under 'tree removal', but one cannot Fell a tree with wedges and a pull line!, 'machine assisted' was verbally defined as a crane removal, (WTF?).. Felling is logging period to them, unless you have a separate 'Farm Labor Contractor' business license, and then you can do pre commerical thinning, trail work, and non commercial tree felling. Also you have to submit a proposal PER JOB, before a quote is given to L'n'I. Landscape job hours can be partitioned with tree removal hours on the same job.

Without looking up the rates from memory
Landscape $1.80 per worker per hour
Tree removal $4.50-$5 per worker per hour (cant fell a spar!)
Logging $18-20 per worker per hour!
Non commercial timber thinning, felling for forest health and fuel reduction $2.50 per worker per hour!!!!

Shit adds up, and if you are audited and found to have Felled a tree they find a comparable company with gross, and size, hit you up for the difference with penalties and interest for all the years they look at.

I know this isn't general liability but workers comp

One general liability policy did dictate 'Felling trees up to 150' had to be accompanied with a 'pull line' and wedges. Cannot occur within City limits'. There was no price difference with that verbiage.
Click to expand...
Wow. It sounds like you have more experience in this arena than I do. Here, our insurance (GL and WC) is all from private companies, and is based on payroll dollar totals, not hours, making a higher paid employee much more expensive. That’s annoying to me, especially since the higher paid guy is probably less likely to cause a claim since he has more experience…

In PA, we have to classify an employee based on the highest cost class they fit in (if the secretary runs a saw once a year, he must be classified under “tree trimming” and not “office/clerical” for the whole year. That’s annoying, since our guys work in the shop in the rain and we have to pay full WC rates anyway.

Insurance requirements and rates do vary tremendously from state to state too, so definitely call a local agent who knows something about the tree industry.
 
Reach said:
Wow. It sounds like you have more experience in this arena than I do. Here, our insurance (GL and WC) is all from private companies, and is based on payroll dollar totals, not hours, making a higher paid employee much more expensive. That’s annoying to me, especially since the higher paid guy is probably less likely to cause a claim since he has more experience…

In PA, we have to classify an employee based on the highest cost class they fit in (if the secretary runs a saw once a year, he must be classified under “tree trimming” and not “office/clerical” for the whole year. That’s annoying, since our guys work in the shop in the rain and we have to pay full WC rates anyway.

Insurance requirements and rates do vary tremendously from state to state too, so definitely call a local agent who knows something about the tree industry.
Click to expand...
For GL its the same total payroll = risk exposure, which is complete bullshit. Higher paid employee's are less risky in my experience than a bunch of min wage goons!
While I have all these rate class codes, and some I can partition per employee, some per task per day, and others I can split per worker, per task, per day it's too complicated! I'm still super small, crew of 3, 2 outside myself, all that extra tracking, partitioning and accounting doesn't add up to much benefit, or cost vs reward. I could sharpen my pencil, and save $20 bucks here and there per working day, but it also costs me time to track it and account for it.. Much easier just to suck it up and roll all the employees in the field under the higher rate regardless of task. It's cleaner when I had a office worker who never worked in the field to keep that separate.

I've simply have started giving more 'benefits' and bonuses vs hourly raises due to these awful charges... I can pay my guys x2 for 20 hours a week, or pay them x1 for 40 hours a week, pay the same for GL (and in many states workers comp).. But I can promise the employees working twice as long/hard will be more likely to trigger a claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom