chelsea
|
|
response 1 of 35:
| 
Nov 25 13:43 UTC 1994 |
Item 68. Hardware and Liability Insurance for Grex
Mary Remmers (chelsea) Thu, Jan 13, 1994 (16:37).
36 lines, 54 responses.
I've contacted three agents regarding insurance coverage for Grex's
computer equipment. Both Allstate and AAA said they didn't offer
anything like what we needed. Dobson-McComber Agency, and independent
agent, asked appropriate questions and seemed willing to do business
stating they've had similar requests for other organizations. Here is
what the agent found:
1. The policy would be with Hastings Mutual
2. Coverage for $6000 replacement coverage and $500,000 liability
3. Deductible of $250
4. Annual premium between $200 and $250 (she will get exact
numbers if we are interested)
I had told her the current value of the equipment is $3000 and
replacement would be $6000. The liability coverage is automatically
bundled with the hardware loss, and will cover any personal injury due to
Grex's equipment. Examples discussed - someone sticks their tongue into
the power supply or tumbles down the stairs while coming to do work on the
machine.
Specifically not covered would be loss from flood or sewer
backup as well as power surges originating more than 100 feet
from the computer. There is special peril computer insurance
available that offers more extensive power surge protection but
this runs quite a bit more, like $500/year.
The equipment would be covered if water from above (toilet, pipes,
bathtub) damaged the computer.
This is a standard policy and as such would cover the usual
range of casualty possibilities. She suggests it would simplify
things if we didn't start the coverage until after it is at
the new address. Coverage could start as soon as she receives
a check.
Is this something Grex should buy?
54 responses total.
----------
(68) #1 Carl (carl)
Thu, Jan 13, 1994 (16:50). 1 line.
It sounds like a good idea to me.
----------
(68) #2 Greg Cronau (gregc)
Thu, Jan 13, 1994 (19:01). 5 lines.
Hmmmm, my first thought is that $250 doesn't sound like much, but then
Cyberspace doesn't have all that much $$$. One of the things to keep in
mind is that we have a few spare Sun-3's to replace the current one with
if it dies. In fact, we have spares for most everything except the disk
and tape drives.
----------
(68) #3 Steve Gibbard (scg)
Thu, Jan 13, 1994 (19:25). 3 lines.
As for the liability insurance, anybody who would stick their tounge into the
power supply deserves to be electrocuted. That should be evolution, not
liability.
----------
(68) #4 Steve Weiss (srw)
Thu, Jan 13, 1994 (21:50). 2 lines.
$250/year sounds like more than the recurring costs of maintaining a
dialup line in the huntgroup. It sounds like a lot.
----------
(68) #5 slooooooooooow output (bartlett)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (00:55). 11 lines.
First of all, thanks to Chelsea for doing the leg work.
Now to the question at hand. $250/year is the equivalent of approx 4
full-time memberships. The question we need to answer is what loss would
Grex sustain if the Dungeon burned down? Could we make good the loss
ourselves without having to purchase new equipment? We have several Sun 3s
and spares for almost everything else. What would be the financial loss to
Grex if something happened to the equipment in the dungeon?
My initial feeling is that while this is a good idea, we might not need it
yet.
----------
(68) #6 Rane Curl (rcurl)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (02:09). 15 lines.
I generally think it is a wise thing for a corporation to have liability
insurance, but that is mitigated somewhat in grex's case, as their is
very little public use of grex's facilities. The other issue is property
loss insurance. The ARRL premium for ham equipment is $1.50/$100(repl)
(including for loss due to flood!), which would come to $90 for grex.
Another organization of which I am a member carries $2-million liability
coverage, and we own 510 acres of "undeveloped" land, plus also-insured
coverage on 40 we lease, and we insure the State of Michigan (!) on
another 20 acres, with cliffs, streams, dead trees, caves and other
hazards present - for $300/year. So, I think $250 is high. However, that
is pretty close to the starting price for any insurance - what the
compnay charges just to carry the account. One thing that might be
looked into is whether there exists an organization or federation of
bbs, who have contracted with an insurance carrier for a pooled-risk
policies (like ARRL for hams, or our insurance company for land trusts).
----------
(68) #7 Hoolie Tyler (tnt)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (02:24). 1 line.
After we're covered, I SURE HOPE SOMEONE STEALS GREX!
----------
(68) #8 Dave Lovelace (davel)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (04:58). 1 line.
Welcome back, Tim.
----------
(68) #9 Dan Romanchik (danr)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (08:42). 2 lines.
I also think this is a little high, especially as gregc notes, we have
replacement Sun 3 parts.
----------
(68) #10 Patricia Snyder-Rayl (pegasus)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (12:59). 7 lines.
Mary,
Did John pass on the tip for you to contact John Barton Ins. Agency
and Citizen's Insurance Co? We get a nice big policy for replacement
of our equipment for about $100/yr less than the figure you quoted.
John Barton Ins. Agency can be reached at 971-8333.
----------
(68) #11 Steve Gibbard (scg)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (17:30). 3 lines.
Is Grex libel if a system problem causes the loss of important mail? If it
is, then we might want to look into liability insurance even if we aren't
allowing the public into the dungeon.
----------
(68) #12 Greg Cronau (gregc)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (17:46). 2 lines.
Nope, mail is at-your-own-risk. Nobody is paying for a service here and
there are no gaurentees.
----------
(68) #13 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (18:58). 17 lines.
I'll contact the John Barton Agency on Monday as well as find out some
what Citizens offers.
I too thought the rate sounded high, at least compared to our homeowners
policy which is about $500 for well over $200,000 worth of property
coverage. And yes, we could probably replace the equipment and come back
up, but it would be a challenge without insurance coverage. Mostly though
I'd like to see Grex have some liability coverage. As it stands right now
if one of our generous volunteers had some mishap while working on the
system he or she would be hanging out there alone in terms of any
financial help. Does everyone having contact with the equipment even have
medical insurance?
Next week I'll get more information on other options that might be
available. If anyone can think of a specific question they'd like
addressed please post it here.
----------
(68) #14 Kent Nassen (kentn)
Fri, Jan 14, 1994 (21:34). 2 lines.
This is a good idea, at least as far as the liability insurance.
Good work, chelsea! Thanks for looking into it.
----------
(68) #15 Valerie Mates (popcorn)
Sat, Jan 15, 1994 (09:24). 2 lines.
What is the chance of a flood at the dungeon? It *is* a basement, and
basements do tend to flood....
----------
(68) #16 slooooooooooow output (bartlett)
Sat, Jan 15, 1994 (17:10). 4 lines.
I'm so conditioned to thinking about liability insurance as a hedge against
greedy or silly (read stupid) folk, that I hadn't considered it as a way to
help out a Grex volunteer who throws out his/her back during the moving
process or something.
----------
(68) #17 Steve Gibbard (scg)
Sat, Jan 15, 1994 (19:16). 5 lines.
Yes, many liability suits are frivilous (have you been injured while jumping
off a 200 foot cliff? Did that cliff have a guard rail on it? It may not
have been your fault...) but in some cases it can actually help. I hope we
can have enough faith in the people with access to Grex to trust them not to
sue us after they stick their tounges in an electric socket.
----------
(68) #18 Rane Curl (rcurl)
Sun, Jan 16, 1994 (01:59). 5 lines.
The primary purpose for an organization to have liability insurance is
to compensate persons that are inadvertently injured in some fashion
by an accident or error caused by the organization. However a good
portion of the high premiums is because of frivilous or unjustified
suits.
----------
(68) #19 Jon Zeeff (jon)
Sun, Jan 16, 1994 (09:16). 3 lines.
I found some insurance for UMCC at a good price. I think the number is
1-800-848-3469. If not, send mail to tony@ais.org.
----------
(68) #20 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Sun, Jan 16, 1994 (11:53). 1 line.
Thanks, I'll give 'em a call.
----------
(68) #21 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Mon, Jan 17, 1994 (18:05). 1 line.
It'll be Wednesday or Thursday before I know more.
----------
(68) #22 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Thu, Jan 20, 1994 (21:53). 20 lines.
I contacted Safeware, the firm Jon Zeeff mentioned in #19, and
this is what they offer: They'll cover Grex's hardware and
non-custom software against fire, theft, vandalism, accidental
damage, flooding, and natural disaster (except earthquake) for
a value of between $5,000 and $8,000 for a premium of $89/year.
They must have a sales receipt showing purchase price in order
for a claim to be made. I explained that a good portion of
our equipment was donated or purchased used and original receipts
aren't available. "Would an independent appraisal or donor's estimate
of resale value be acceptable?" She said no, not good enough.
Also, it should be noted that in the event of a damage claim Safeware
has the option of either repairing or replacing. It's their call.
The deductible is $50. There is no liability coverage available.
I'm waiting for the John A. Barton insurance agency to return
call. Dobson McComber is also going to price out a lower amount
of hardware coverage.
----------
(68) #23 Rane Curl (rcurl)
Fri, Jan 21, 1994 (02:08). 11 lines.
I'd suggest going a little higher in Safeware, or at least get another
opinion. Since they are not insuring against *failure*, but only
against certain types of accidents, and we would be paying a premium for
replacement or repair, why does it matter what the equipment
is worth, or that we have a receipt? Is it a matter of proving *ownership*?
That could be done by some legal maneuver or other.
We definitely want to get liability insurance. A company selling liability
insurance generally also offers property insurance, so I agree with
getting additional quotes.
----------
(68) #24 STeve Andre' (steve)
Wed, Jan 26, 1994 (17:26). 5 lines.
Are we sure we want liability insurance? I mean, whats the point?
I'm certainly not going to go after Cyberspace COmmunications if I
fall and hurt myself in the dungeon; I'll stick my neck out a little
and say the other staff types won't either. So then, what is the
reason?
----------
(68) #25 Greg Cronau (gregc)
Wed, Jan 26, 1994 (17:39). 2 lines.
Not me man, If I drop even a mag tape on my foot I'm gonna sue all of
youse for a million bucks!
----------
(68) #26 Dan Romanchik (danr)
Wed, Jan 26, 1994 (20:32). 4 lines.
If it's not too expensive, I'd vote for liability insurance. You
may not go after us, but say you decide to bring a friend down
there with you one day. And even if you don't go after us, it would
be nice to know that you'd be covered.
----------
(68) #27 John H. Remmers (remmers)
Wed, Jan 26, 1994 (21:38). 3 lines.
Indeed. I think the point is that it would be nice if we could compensate
people who are injured in the line of Grexing even if they don't come
after us.
----------
(68) #28 Steve Gibbard (scg)
Wed, Jan 26, 1994 (22:17). 3 lines.
Would liability insurance allow us to say "yes, we're libel, we should pay
them," or do we have to be sued first?
----------
(68) #29 Greg Cronau (gregc)
Wed, Jan 26, 1994 (23:31). 1 line.
I think we'd have to be sued.
----------
(68) #30 Steve Gibbard (scg)
Wed, Jan 26, 1994 (23:59). 8 lines.
re 28:
Make that "liable." If anything posted on Grex is found to be libel,
that is an entirely different issue of liability. ;)
Actually, on that note, could not having liability insurance keep the
deep pockets theory from working against us if somebody objected to something
posted here? Should there maybe something in the motd saying something to
the effect of, "Cyberspace Communications takes no responsibility for, and has
no control over, the content of the conferences?"
----------
(68) #31 Rane Curl (rcurl)
Thu, Jan 27, 1994 (02:56). 13 lines.
scg's suggestion is worth considering. You should see the MSEN
disclaimers! Liability insurance covers losses to person or property,
not reputation. You need other insurance for that, which I don't think
we need. The reason you have to be sued for liabiility insurance to
pay is the insurance agencies like it that way. But a "suit" just means
a legal claim. The insurance company will judge the merits of the claim
and if they consider it valid, they would pay. Liability "suits" only
go to court if they are contested, which most are not. What one is
mostly paying for in liability insurance is the *services* of the legal
office of the insurance company - you don't have to hire another lawyer.
Anyone with control over real estate should have liability insurance -
whether they are owners or renters (this is usually known as
"homeowners" or "renters" insurance).
----------
(68) #32 STeve Andre' (steve)
Thu, Jan 27, 1994 (18:48). 7 lines.
I like scg's statement. I can see no useful purpose to liability
insurance other than to insure that we spend more money. Once we
start woorying about liability, there is no end. We're an amateur
based system, so any laywer who is looking to help a client who is
looking to sue us is most likely going to try and figure out how
to sue us individually.
Equipment insureance makes sense. But thats all.
----------
(68) #33 Kent Nassen (kentn)
Thu, Jan 27, 1994 (19:16). 12 lines.
I've heard that "I won't sue if I get injured" line before. Not to
disparage steve or greg, but you may change your mind if your medical
bills from even a minor accident start ruining that wonderful home
life (with well-fed kiddies, and happy wife). Liability insurance
might even cover the thief that breaks in and breaks his leg tripping
down the stairs.
Ask around. You'll probably find an acquaintance or two who said
they'd "never sue" but changed their mind when the bills started coming
in.
I hate insurance as much or more than most people, but sometimes
you need it. I hope the board will discuss this rationally and weigh
the risks carefully (both ways).
----------
(68) #34 Jemmie Wang (rogue)
Thu, Jan 27, 1994 (22:28). 8 lines.
The "I won't sue if I get injured" line is absolutely worthless. After
losing wages, talking to lawyers who charge $0 unless something is
recovered, etc., most people sue.
I think the price is too high. Grex's pockets are far from deep and
the operators of Grex are separated enough from Grex so as to guarantee
them protection from personal liability. Few people would go through the
trouble of suing Grex for a couple of thousand dollars...
----------
(68) #35 Dan Romanchik (danr)
Thu, Jan 27, 1994 (22:35). 2 lines.
But they might decide to go after the board of directors. That's why
I'm for looking into it.
----------
(68) #36 Rane Curl (rcurl)
Fri, Jan 28, 1994 (02:15). 19 lines.
Steve's opinion reflects a "popular" negative, and cynical, attitude
toward lawyers-and-all-that, but it is not realistic. It is simply
a responsibility of a corporation to take responsibility for any
injuries or losses caused by any action or inaction on its part.
Danr's observation is relevant. There is a provision in State law,
which was wisely incorporated into the grex Articles, which prevents
members or participants from suing Board members for any breach of
trust that is not illegal. What the provision does is commit the
corporation to indemnify the Board members for any claims against them.
Many non-profits cannot find persons to volunteer to serve on their
Boards without this provision in effect. Notice that the *corporation*
is legally committed, now, to indemnify the Board members. Don't you
think now that the corporation should have liability insurance? There
is a recently adopted provision of State law that extends this
indemnification provision to the members and volunteers of non-profit
corporations. The purpose of the law is to assist non-profits to
attract voluneers that might fear that they assume liability by
participating.
----------
(68) #37 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Fri, Jan 28, 1994 (17:22). 25 lines.
The John A. Barton agency returned my call today but Mr. Barton
didn't have a lot of positive things to offer. First off he wondered
why we really needed liability coverage when it wouldn't apply
toward any of Cyberspace Comm's members. (Gawd, this suprised me.)
He said the liability he could offer would only be helpful to a
third party injured while dealing with our equipment. I didn't
ask whether that would mean just our dues paying members
or whether "membership" would mean anyone who uses our system.
Also, he said insurance companies really don't like to deal with
non-profit enterprises. I asked why. He hedged then offered that
there is just less accountability in a non-profit structure and in
general less care is taken to keep things safe and secure.
He is going to get back next week with prices regarding both
$3000 and $6000 loss coverage packages. I have a feeling this
company is not going to suit our needs.
I was able to follow up with Dobson-McComber today and we'll be
getting an exact price on the policy I spoke of earlier ($6000
replacement and $500,000 liability). I asked if we could maybe
cut the premium by selecting a lower amount of coverage but she
said we are already at the minimum offered. She is going to check
into the specifics of the liability coverage offered but doesn't
believe our staff would be exempt.
----------
(68) #38 Dave Lovelace (davel)
Fri, Jan 28, 1994 (21:48). 3 lines.
Mary, thanks for all the work you're putting in on this. I for one think
it's important to at least check it out (& to do if we can), & I for one
would have trouble being patient enough to put up with that kind of stuff.
----------
(68) #39 Jim Knight (jfk)
Fri, Jan 28, 1994 (22:59). 3 lines.
Mary, I can find out who we got our coverage from.
I seem to remember we got a decent deal.
----------
(68) #40 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Sat, Jan 29, 1994 (10:13). 8 lines.
I'd appreciate that, Jim. At some point the M-net folks must have
called Dobson-McComber. I know this because about halfway through
my spiel on what Cyberspace Comm was all about she remarked that
they had just had a request from a similar organization. She couldn't
recall the name though. I suggested Arbornet. Bingo.
This project hasn't been a lot of work. Mostly it's been waiting to
hear back from the different agents. But thanks for the thanks.
----------
(68) #41 Kent Nassen (kentn)
Sat, Jan 29, 1994 (10:44). 2 lines.
Thanks for looking into this, chelsea. It's important to have good
information to make a good decision...
----------
(68) #42 Jim Knight (jfk)
Wed, Feb 2, 1994 (00:09). 2 lines.
Yep, Dobson-McComber is who we ended up dealing with. They came highly
reccomended from several groups at the NEW Center.
----------
(68) #43 STeve Andre' (steve)
Fri, Feb 11, 1994 (10:27). 4 lines.
Well Rane, I appreciate what you're saying, but I still think
we can dispense with it. I do however get the feeling that I'm
in the minority here. If it doesn't cost that much then I won't
pout when/if it comes to a vote.
----------
(68) #44 TS Taylor (tsty)
Sun, Feb 13, 1994 (08:36). 10 lines.
I don't have a very high opinion of insurance when the risk
factor is so darned low. For us to get enough coverage to REPLACE
the FUNCTIONALITY of this system and its components, we'd have
to insure for VeryMuchMore than its current market value.
Besides, if we self-insure (that is create a capital-acquisition fund
which sequesters the "insurance amount") and pay ourselves, the money
is still "spent" and we also still have the money + interest instead
of losing the money + interest to some non-Grexian entity that is
in business to absorb other peoples' money.
----------
(68) #45 Dan Romanchik (danr)
Sun, Feb 13, 1994 (09:59). 4 lines.
I think there are two issues here: equipment insurance and liability
insurance. I think there is general, though not universal, agreement
that insuring the equpiment is too costly. I think there is more
support for liability insurance, pending a more concrete quote.
----------
(68) #46 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Sun, Feb 13, 1994 (11:39). 1 line.
I'm still here and working on getting quotes. Stay tuned.
----------
(68) #47 Jon Zeeff (jon)
Sun, Feb 13, 1994 (12:25). 1 line.
$89/year is too costly
----------
(68) #48 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Tue, Feb 15, 1994 (09:19). 27 lines.
Okay, here's the dope. Dobson McComber called back with the exact
quote a premium - $232. But there was more information regarding
the liability coverage. Paid employees would be covered under some
formula used for workman's compensation and we'd be obligated under
law to pay into this state fund. Unpaid employees or volunteers would
not be covered under this policy. There is such a thing available but
it is *very* expensive; she suggested it's beyond our needs.
When I asked what small non-profits do to protect their volunteers
in the event of an accident she responsed that they usually depend
on everyone to already have adequate personal insurance, some even
require it of their volunteers. (Boy, those without health insurance
sure are second class citizens) <-- Editorial comment.
The John A. Barton company hasn't called back after I left two
more messages. I give up there.
So after all is said and done we aren't going to be able to provide
our staff with any liability covereage. We can get good hardware
replacement insurance but it's not cheap, $232 per year. We can get
it cheaper but the rules involving proof of purchase and sales
recipts make it dubious we could make a claim.
Whatcha all think? I agree that buying insurance at this point
under these rules would probably not buy us much and that the
money would be better spent elsewhere. But I'm still glad
it was investigated.
----------
(68) #49 Rane Curl (rcurl)
Tue, Feb 15, 1994 (09:52). 4 lines.
The response concerning liability insurance doesn't seem right. *That*
should be inexpensive. I will also check with our insurance company.
Their business is primarily with land trusts, but they may know of
companies that specialize in BBSs (as unlikely as that would appear).
----------
(68) #50 Kent Nassen (kentn)
Tue, Feb 15, 1994 (09:54). 2 lines.
Did any agency respond to the "we don't have a receipt, but we do
have the equipment appraised since we bought it used" argument?
----------
(68) #51 Mary Remmers (chelsea)
Tue, Feb 15, 1994 (15:07). 10 lines.
Thanks, Rane.
The only company that was going to be a sticker as to proof of
purchase or appraised value was Safeware, who specializes in
insuring computers. They wouldn't even consider an appraisal.
They wanted the original Bill of Sale. When I explained that
a lot of our equipment was purchased used or given to Grex but
that we could probably get a statement of worth from the donator
she said that wouldn't do. My overall feeling was these guys would
be very difficult to deal with should we ever make a claim.
----------
(68) #52 Steve Weiss (srw)
Tue, Feb 15, 1994 (19:10). 5 lines.
Unless somebody (like maybe rcurl) can turn around the liability
situation, this whole thing seems like a dead end to me.
I really want to thank you chelsea, for your efforts here.
I'm glad we checked on these things.
I am not real shocked that this is the outcome though.
----------
(68) #53 TS Taylor (tsty)
Wed, Feb 16, 1994 (04:08). 9 lines.
Given that the insurance industry controls (behind the scenes) all
too much of this country (fear and all that), I should be shocked,
but, as srw said also, I'm not.
If we had liability insurance, we would be worth suing. Without
it all "they" could get is the Sun, and not the Moon and Stars too.
sure, it'd be a real kick in the teeth, but we should consider
sequestering an equivalent dollar amount - - for improvements.
----------
(68) #54 Rane Curl (rcurl)
Wed, Feb 16, 1994 (10:24). 6 lines.
If the corporation doesn't have liability insurance, "they" go after
anyone involved in the corporation (if you are paranoid). Buying
libaility insurance buys the company's lawyers, to defend you. However,
as I said before, the *real* reason for buying liability insurance is
to compensate someone for damages for which you are responsible, while
sharing the risk.
|