|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 220 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 100 of 220:
| 
Feb 5 22:39 UTC 1999 |
read the small print! people have lost their livelihoods by signing
leases and not reading the small print. In fact grex should have
a lawyer read the lease just to be safe.
|
other
|
|
response 101 of 220:
|
Feb 6 01:45 UTC 1999 |
richard, in your enthusiasm, try not to forget that the people at whom your
resp #100 is aimed are not stupid.
|
mary
|
|
response 102 of 220:
|
Feb 6 03:34 UTC 1999 |
It is my understanding that the renewal, each year, is automatic
unless either party gives written notice of the intent not to renew.
This notice would need to be given a minimum of 4 months prior, or by
January 31st, each year. But this is a good example of why we need to
have the completed (filled in) lease in our possession while it is
being discussed. I'll have it Wednesday.
Ms. Watrous had a printout of our payments in front of her during
our discussion, but I think it was for 1998, and therefore didn't
show the recent 5% increase. But I called her today and left a
message so she would be aware of our current amount. We have been
in the pumpkin a number of years now, without our rent budging a
dime. I personally don't think we should nickel and dime anyone
over a 5% increase that will start 7 months early. It would be
a good will gesture to let it be.
I'll get the blank lease to Valerie and Jan tomorrow so everyone can get a
look at it. One item is going to cause us to take a deep breath, but I
knew it was coming. We're going to need indemnity insurance. This is
standard. We've just been lucky up to this point that our contracts have
been so, er, casual. We could try to obtain a waiver but I seriously
doubt this will fly - it would shift additional liability to the landlord.
Someone should start looking into what this costs. I'll help by calling
Dobson McComber, on Monday, and ask about commercial tenant policies.
Here is the section I'm referring to:
TENANT TO INDEMNIFY. Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless Landlord from any liability for damages to any person
or property in, on or around said leased premises from any cause
whatsoever; and Tenant will procure and keep in effect during
the term hereof, public liability and property damage insurance
for benefit of Landlord in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00)
Dollars for damages resulting to one person, One Million
($1,000,000.00) Dollars for damages resulting from one casualty,
and One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars property damage insurance
resulting from any one occurrence. Tenant shall deliver said policies
or certificates to Landlord, and upon Tenant's failure so to do,
Landlord may at its option obtain such insurance, and the cost
thereof shall be paid as additional rent due and payable upon the
next ensuing rent day. Such insurance may be part of a blanket policy
covering other properties issued by a company licensed to do
business in Michigan.
So, it's not a done deal yet. I think the best response is
"So far, so good, let's get more information."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 103 of 220:
|
Feb 6 05:48 UTC 1999 |
There are associations that make reasonable cost liability insurance
available to member organizations. I don't know if there is one for
computer systems, but such policies are available through the ARRL for
radio amateurs, or through the LTA for land trusts.
|
richard
|
|
response 104 of 220:
|
Feb 6 20:35 UTC 1999 |
Is it worth staying there if Grex can live somewhere else and *not*
have to buy indemnity insurance? those insurance premiums will add up
after a while....
|
rcurl
|
|
response 105 of 220:
|
Feb 6 20:52 UTC 1999 |
Every corporation should carry liability insurance. Something *could*
be done by (in the name of) the corporation, and it is the corporations
civil responsibility to compensate for any injuries or damage. Of course,
Grex could just stand bare (as it does now), so any liability would
involve the liquidation of assets. The more important aspect of liability
insurance, however, is it pays the cost of legal defense against baseless
liability claims.
Everything adds up after while....
|
scg
|
|
response 106 of 220:
|
Feb 6 21:46 UTC 1999 |
The insurance would add up after a while. The higher rent we would have to
pay somewhere else would add up after a while.
I have no idea how much that sort of insurance would be for a non-profit
corporation that doesn't have much property and doesn't have very many people
visiting its "office." For my home, the renters insurance I have that covers
both liability and my property, is around $100 per year.
|
steve
|
|
response 107 of 220:
|
Feb 6 22:33 UTC 1999 |
As much as I'd like to avoid it, it sounds like we need to get
liability insurance. What scares me however, is what an insurance
company might do if they understood how open we are. Maybe thats a
groundless fear, but I wonder how easy (and expensive) it will be.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 220:
|
Feb 7 01:07 UTC 1999 |
Insurance companies base their premiums on two things: the past claim
records for different hazards, and *x times their best estimates for
hazards with which they are unfamiliar*, where x is a big number. This is
why one wants a broker familiar with the hazards in a given
industry/activity. For example, one broken might worry about liability if
someone broke into the pumpkin and was electrocuted; one familiar with the
industry may not even consider that as a likelihood. Since there are so
many internet service providers around, you can probably get some ideas
from them on what companies to approach, or if their is a consortium
pooling risks.
|
steve
|
|
response 109 of 220:
|
Feb 7 03:59 UTC 1999 |
I will hope you are correct. With luck you are. It's just that
Grex isn't like an ISP, I don't think. The paranoid side of me sees
the our openness as something that might scare ins. people.
|
mdw
|
|
response 110 of 220:
|
Feb 7 04:30 UTC 1999 |
The liability insurance we're talking about here may be different than
what people are thinking. This sounds like insurance related to damage
someone might suffer while on the premises - like falling through the
stairs, a slip & fall accident on the front steps, etc. What some
people here may be thinking of is insurance related to grex's business,
ie, some guy in tennessee sues us because someone on grex sends him an
e-mail containing a naughty word.
Personally, to me, this sounds like just another way to hike the rent up
just a tad more.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 111 of 220:
|
Feb 7 05:42 UTC 1999 |
The most important insurance is simple liability for injury or property
damage. I doubt you can get insurance specifically for suits based
on the information Grex disseminates, although something like it might
come along with liability insurance, though I don't know what to call it.
The next insurance issue non-profits confront is D&O - directors and
officers - insurance, though mostly for cases when board members are
rich business people (doesn't sound like Grex).
|
rtg
|
|
response 112 of 220:
|
Feb 7 06:57 UTC 1999 |
marcus has a good point in #110. They are requiring insurance to protect
them, not us. Since we do not have any customer traffic through our place
of business, the probability that our tenancy will propagate a lawsuit on
the landlord is about nil. When we find an agent that understands that,
we'll get quite reasonable coverage. They'll probably want to write us an
O&D policy too, and include the landlord's coverage as a rider...
|
mary
|
|
response 113 of 220:
|
Feb 7 12:16 UTC 1999 |
I have someone calling me back on Monday from Dobson McComber.
I'd like to find out what it would cost to just meet the
terms stipulated in the proposed lease.
I can understand why a landlord would want tenants to share
some of the insurance burden. Landlords have precious
little control over the contents of the space they are
renting. If our equipment started a fire which destroyed
a chunk of the building and injured someone in the process,
as it is right now we simply say, "So sorry, really, but we
have no assets to compensate anyone for their loses."
It's not going to be fun paying for this insurance, but
it is the right thing to do.
|
mary
|
|
response 114 of 220:
|
Feb 7 12:18 UTC 1999 |
Does M-Net need to carry similar coverage? They might be
a source for another policy estimate.
|
pfv
|
|
response 115 of 220:
|
Feb 7 14:43 UTC 1999 |
I don't really see how it can be much more costly than your
run-of-the-mill "Renters Insurance".. Simply because the
"human factor" is extremely limited.
Now, otoh, as far as the "spark & fire" gig.. Isn't the
place rigged w/ fire-suppression? Is there anything that can
be installed/jerry-rigged that would satisfy the insurance
mahouts? W/O the insurance, I suspect sprinklers going off
would prolly terminate "Grex-As-We-Know-It"..
(Anyone taken off-site a backup in recent memory?)
|
other
|
|
response 116 of 220:
|
Feb 7 16:51 UTC 1999 |
gosh, we could jerry-rig a CO2 gas fire suppression system....
|
steve
|
|
response 117 of 220:
|
Feb 7 17:56 UTC 1999 |
Benz Insurance in AA is likely another good place to check
beides Dobsen.
|
devnull
|
|
response 118 of 220:
|
Feb 7 20:24 UTC 1999 |
Insurance agents and the like generally don't like things that are
jerry-rigged.
Off-site backups are always an annoying issue. (Which reminds me, next time
I have a chance I should gather a set up tapes with a full dump of the gnu.org
machines...)
|
pfv
|
|
response 119 of 220:
|
Feb 7 20:26 UTC 1999 |
gnu.org??
|
valerie
|
|
response 120 of 220:
|
Feb 7 22:31 UTC 1999 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 121 of 220:
|
Feb 7 22:57 UTC 1999 |
The inclusion of a landlord in your liability insurance is standard,
and called an "also insured" provision. It usually costs little or
nothing. The MKC has the *whole State of Michigan* as an also-insured
on its liability insurance, because of holding a Special Use Permit
on State land.
|
mdw
|
|
response 122 of 220:
|
Feb 8 04:46 UTC 1999 |
It would be silly to install special fire suppression equipment. Grex's
total budget, for the life of its complete existance, coulnd't possibly
even *begin* to buy such a fire suppression system, and the total value
of the equipment we'd be protecting isn't anywhere near that expensive.
Basically, if something sets the sprinklers off, we write the equipment
off as a dead loss (but we might be able to salvage the chair & desk).
We buy new equipment. We find a new home. We might beg some temporary
space if the new home will take time to get ready (ie, installing isdn).
We start up again. Sure, it would hurt, and there's a chance we might
not survive, but that's true of any disaster. The off-site backup is
cheap insurance. Anything more is wasted money.
So far as a fire goes, I actually worry more about the other tenants in
the building than I do us. Quite a few of them smoke.
|
devnull
|
|
response 123 of 220:
|
Feb 8 20:45 UTC 1999 |
Would it be worth storing the `new' sun offsite?
|
dang
|
|
response 124 of 220:
|
Feb 8 20:48 UTC 1999 |
Not if we want to use it for development, which we're currently doing.
It's a great place to set up a new OS, for example, to get around our
65K user limit. If we want to do that, then we want it on the same
ethernet as Grex, so we can transfer stuff, and get back and forth.
Besides, putting the backup sun offsite would create all kinds of access
problems, if we actually want to use it for anything. If, however, we
decide not to use it for anything but a backup, then taking it offsite
is merely annoy. We'd have to move it. :)
|