Travis brings up a good point I think. When I purchased insurance on my
bucket truck,
I specifically asked the agent about possible problems with it being a
bucket truck, and
he assured me that as far as the automotive liability insurance was
concerned, the bucket
had no effect, as any mis-haps involving the use of the bucket itself
would not fall
under automotive insurance policies. It would effect comprehensive
insurance as the
value of the truck would be increased, but my truck is old enough I just
took liability
on it.

I too think issues with the use of the bucket would more likely be
covered under
my general liability policy, unless it was a case of employee injury
(falling out of the
bucket) which would fall under workman's comp. Meanwhile, I use the
truck because
it is so much safer for me (and any employee's I might hire) than
working from a ladder.

The holder of my general business liability may well disclaim any
responsibility because
they think it should be the automotive insurer's. :)

I hope I never have to find out.

John


Travis Johnson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There are several other factors to consider here.... insurance on the
> vehicle itself is to cover if you damage someone else's property
> (vehicle) by getting into an accident on the road. You may also have
> full-coverage insurance to pay to fix the bucket truck itself.
>
> However, the other issue is general liability insurance... if you have
> someone in the bucket and they go thru someone's roof because they
> aren't paying attention, wouldn't that be covered by your general
> liability policy, rather than the auto insurance policy?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> P.S. In almost 10 years in the wireless business, and well over
> 1,000,000 miles logged on over 20 wireless vehicles during that time
> (including several bucket trucks), we have never had an insurance
> claim...  yet my rates continue to go up every year... :(
>
> Tom DeReggi wrote:
>> When you put it that way....... It does bring a new perpective to
>> think about. Well said.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance for use of bucket truck or lift for
>> installs.
>>
>>
>>> Tom, I do share some of same views that You have. I just thought it
>>> would be a good idea to present the pros and cons of "omitting"
>>> information. There are 2 types of insurance customers it seems?. The
>>> first one is like Yourself. You buy the insurance because You have
>>> to, and the thought of using it doesn't really cross Your mind for
>>> all the reasons You mentioned below. If it were possible, I am sure
>>> that insurance CO's would love to find a way to discern the quality
>>> customers from the irresponsible ones, and charge lower rates based
>>> on this fact, and the fact that the bucket is only used once a
>>> month?. That sad part is there is no real way to do this, as
>>> insurance is based on the law of large #'s, and in order for it to
>>> work, everyone must be lumped together in one big "pool"(for lack of
>>> other words?). Your customer profile is fairly common though. I
>>> respect the fact that when the truck is in the field, only
>>> responsible operators like Yourself will be operating the bucket,
>>> being extra cautious as to whats going on around You and whats
>>> happening when the boom is moving etc. This is the way it should be
>>> at all times. Now lets move on to the second type of customer(The
>>> most uncommon, believe it or not?). This person usually does
>>> everything they can to cut corners, not only with work ethics and
>>> install qualities but also with their level of responsibilties in
>>> the day to day operation of their business. This customer will hire
>>> the cheapest employee that will work for them, skimp on safety and
>>> vehicle maintainence,  owe $$ to most of the vendors he or she does
>>> business with and they will usually try and call their employees
>>> "Sub-contractors", trying to avoid paying taxes and workmans
>>> compensation to make more $$(This is really an entirely different
>>> topic, but I am just using this as an example?). This risk taking
>>> carries over to things such as the safe use of a bucket truck. If
>>> You remember, I mentioned that the people that work for this person
>>> are really only there because they can not find a job anywhere else,
>>> and our business owner in question hires them because it is cheap
>>> labor. The day comes when the bucket truck is needed for an install,
>>> and our employee gets behind the wheel to do the job(Keep in mind
>>> that our employee was up half the night boozing with his/her
>>> friends, and just found it their spouse is messing with the
>>> neighbor). When at the job site, this employee will not have very
>>> good safety principles, and will do something really dumb like tear
>>> the service head for the electric off the wall of the house and tear
>>> down the cable CO's fiber line, along with the local Telco's phone
>>> systems. The reason I am mentioning all this is because for the most
>>> part, 10% of all insurance customers file 90% of the claims for
>>> reasons mentioned above. This same customer will also use their
>>> insurance policy as a maintainence contract, and try to get the
>>> insurance CO to pay for things that You or I would simply say, "OK,
>>> this happened, but I will just fix it myself, as it was my fault in
>>> the first place".  I dropped a 4ft piece of pipe off of the roof
>>> last year and it hit the only car parked on the entire street. It
>>> was an older car that already had 4000 dents and peeling paint, but
>>> the damage to the fender was $430. I just paid it, because it was
>>> stupidity in the first place, and I didn't want my rates to go up?.
>>> Now, the other side of this: We have an incidence where an
>>> individual needed new tires for inspection, so using their really
>>> smart brain, they drove it home from the mechanic that failed it,
>>> and slashed all the tires themselves. The insurance CO only paid the
>>> prorated amount, as the tires were worn out in the first place, so
>>> this enterprising individual got pissed, and went and got a set of
>>> tires(That didn't match) from the local junk yard that had been
>>> slashed in a previous crime, had them mounted on the rims for the
>>> van, and then tried to claim a 2nd time that his tires had been
>>> vandalized again. I guess You all figured out that this moron is now
>>> in jail for insurance fraud?(For every one that is caught, 10 get
>>> away with it)
>>> The reason I am mentioning all of this is that I am trying to show
>>> all of You why and how Your insurance rates have been steadily
>>> rising over the last few years. The bad thing is that even though I
>>> am an agent, I still pay the same rates that everyone else pays. I
>>> also do not have a bucket truck, as I find them useless for over 99%
>>> of all the installs I do(I am sure there are some of us who would be
>>> lost without one?), and I can not justify the costs for a device
>>> that will sit around most of the time. Keep in mind that no matter
>>> who operates that bucket truck, and how careful they are, it only
>>> takes a split second for something bad to happen, and if that claim
>>> is not insured (Or the CO denys it) and it is a large loss, The
>>> person without the needed coverage will be the one getting screwed.
>>> It really could mean the difference between You and Your family
>>> having a place to live, or the local sheriff having a yard sale. If
>>> and when it does happen, it is too late to say "Man!, I really wish
>>> I had told them about the bucket?"
>>> I am not trying to start a major debate, I am just trying to explain
>>> why all of this is a PITA, and why getting insurance is becoming way
>>> harder than it should be?
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>>> Tim,
>>>>
>>>> I agree, there is risk of not getting covered, if full disclosure
>>>> is not given. That is something that the WISP should consider in
>>>> advance. (But doesn't mean it won't be covered, as they'd need to
>>>> prove that having the bucket was something both parties typical
>>>> would think relevant to disclose. The insurance company wrote the
>>>> contract and it would be their responsibility to bring up the
>>>> things that should or should not be disclosed. I'd not suggest a
>>>> WISP lie, if there was a question or text referencing wether there
>>>> was or wasn't a bucket, as that would guarantee not getting
>>>> covered.)   But I think it is also relavent, what a WISPs intent is
>>>> for use of the truck and bucket.  Someone that wants a bucket
>>>> truck, but only plans to use it once a month for the "tough" job,
>>>> should not have to pay the same high rate, as say a Lineman that
>>>> may use the bucket all day / every day around high voltage lines. 
>>>> Very few insurance companies have provisions for that, as they do
>>>> not have a way to control what the usage will actually end up
>>>> being.  This means a WISP then needs to make cost versus risk
>>>> assesments, on what they want to do. I'd also argue, that it would
>>>> be rare for me to ever justify making an insurance claim, based on
>>>> the risk of loosing the insurance or no longer being able to afford
>>>> it, after making the claime.  (except for extreme cases like
>>>> someone falling and breaking their neck).  If the owner or a
>>>> supervisor are the only ones that will be using the bucket, more
>>>> care can be taken and less risk taken, than if the intent is for
>>>> the truck to be used by all/any installers frequently. Some people
>>>> buy insurance for compliance to do business, not necessarilly for
>>>> the coverage itself.  Just like every other type of insurance
>>>> (health, life, business, etc), one must waiver wether they really
>>>> need insurance, or can afford to pay to releive the risk or not.
>>>>
>>>> Quite honestly, I'd rather take a chance of not getting covered in
>>>> a bucket, and minimize the risk of someone getting injured because
>>>> they have the bucket, than have the installer taking risks on a
>>>> dangerous ladder all day long.  I'm not downplaying the risk
>>>> involved for a bucket truck, I'm jsut saying that Ladders are
>>>> dangerous to, expecially for single man crew.  I know about more
>>>> personal injury suits in the trades, via falling off ladders, than
>>>> any other cause.
>>>>
>>>> Its not that I don't believe in insurance, or in doing it
>>>> legitimately. Its just that if a WISP is not careful, there
>>>> insurance policy costs can put them out of business, just having an
>>>> uninsured injury.  For example, many "amusement" companies go out
>>>> of business because they can't afford the insurance and can't
>>>> jsutify takingthe risk without it.  I'd hate to see the same thing
>>>> destroy wireless companies.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to handle the issue from the other side... Inforce strong
>>>> safety policies and safety awareness education.  The safety
>>>> training is much less expensive than the insurance and paying
>>>> claims. Not that that negates the need for insurance, but it will
>>>> keep the rates down, if WISPs as an industry don't put themselves
>>>> in the position to be claim happy.
>>>>
>>>> For the record, I personally do not have a bucket truck yet.
>>>>
>>>> Tom DeReggi
>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to