Brought to you by:

BigINYHorizontal 172x66px

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad

    « MetLife, Lyft to Partner on Coverage for Lyft Drivers | Main | New ISO CGL Endorsement Excludes Data Breach Liability »

    May 29, 2014


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


    I didn't realize that there was a debate whether or not insurance companies pay for hired help as an employee or as an independent contractor. Is one of them more expensive than the other? I would think that it would be legally safer to pay for them as an independent contractor, but that just might be me.

    Tim Dodge

    An employer's liability insurance policy will pay for the liability of the firm's employee, but not of its independent contractor. In this case, it was clearly less expensive for the plumbing contractor's insurer to call Mr. Goessl an independent contractor because the insurer then had no obligation to pay for the damage he allegedly caused. Different circumstances might change that equation, though, so I can't make a blanket statement that one is necessarily less expensive than the other.

    The comments to this entry are closed.