Insurance for house repairs ?

Roof repairs needed, quote for E5,000 approx. Local handyman, very good, will do job. However when asked he said he had no insurance. He would have another working with him. Would like him to do work but am concerned about insurance.
Have house insurance but cannot see if this provides cover. Would this suffice or would I have to arrange other insurance.
Would appreciate any comments

Avoid him and hire someone with indemnity insurance. Without that you will be liable for damage or injuries they cause to themselves or others.

darvas said:

Have house insurance but cannot see if this provides cover. Would this suffice or would I have to arrange other insurance.

Click to expand...

Most home insurance policies include a level of public liability cover, though some exclude cover for people you employ to carry out work. Read the T&Cs of that section of your policy.

Your home insurance MAY cover you in the event that he is injured, but what if he does not do the work properly? You have no comback on him then. Also, if his 'employee' were to be injured, you might have to carry the can.

Checked with my broker who in turn checked with insurance company. Was told that my policy would not cover such work. ( would cover work like painting, cleaning windows or gutters etc but not more substantial work)
Thanks for replies

Much confusion arises with contractors and insurance. The notice on the side of a contractor's van to the effect that they are "fully insured" misleads. What that means, at best, is that the contractor is fully insured for their liabilities as distinct from yours !

THE LAW.

IMHO the handyman will fall in to two possible categories namely an independent contractor or an employee.

The general rules are these ;
1. A principal [the householder in this case] is usually not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor.
2. A principal will usually be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee.

How do you distinguish the status of independent contractor or employee ? A number of tests can be applied to the facts of an individual case to answer this question. However, for brevity, the principal test is that of control. Specifically, does the principal retain the right to control the method of work or not ?

If a principal retains the right of control over the method of working that creates the presumption of the existence of a master / servant [employer / employee] relationship. Controlling the method of working should not be confused with defining the end purpose of the intended works.

Q. Does it matter if the other party is an independent contractor or an employee ?
A. Yes.
Why ?
There are a number of onerous legal duties owed to an employee by virtue of the existence of the master/servant relationship.
With one exception - negligence simpliciter - these are duties that would not exist outside of the master servant relationship.
This is why employers' liability claims give a plaintiff more legal targets at which to aim.

What about the handyman's mate ? He could be an employee of the handyman or the householder. It all depends for the reasons explained above !

INSURANCE.

As I read my household insurance contract I see that there is cover for both employers' liability and public liability.
As can be gleaned from remarks above you might not know which applies until after an accident has happened !

I am unconvinced about the interpretation given to OP's broker by the insurance underwriters - it sounds a touch glib to me.
That said, much depends on what the insurance contract says.

Even if the handyman had insurance and produced his documents that is no guarantee that the policies would actually cover a claim and it would actually be the same with a bona fide professional contractor.

CONTRACT ISSUE.

When signing a contract for works read carefully what you are agreeing. Some contracts may require a principal / customer to provide indemnity to the contractor in respect of any accidents. Insurance contracts very often exclude liabilities that have been assumed under contract unless the liability would have existed anyhow.

I am unconvinced about the interpretation given to OP's broker by the insurance underwriters - it sounds a touch glib to me.
That said, much depends on what the insurance contract says.

Why does it sound a 'touch glib'? ALL depends on the Policy Wording, not just 'much'!

Is the job deemed 'maintenance' or 'construction'? The former would possibly be covered, the latter certainly not.

Ravima said:

I am unconvinced about the interpretation given to OP's broker by the insurance underwriters - it sounds a touch glib to me.
That said, much depends on what the insurance contract says.

Why does it sound a 'touch glib'? ALL depends on the Policy Wording, not just 'much'!

Is the job deemed 'maintenance' or 'construction'? The former would possibly be covered, the latter certainly not.

Click to expand...

Probably cynical prejudice on my part. I have encountered instances of insurers telling customers over the phone that something was not covered under the policy when it certainly was.

In one particular instance an elderly uncle's property suffered significant damage to an underground service. He rang the insurer's to notify them and was shooed off with the erroneous assertion that it was not covered. Having armed my uncle with suitable arguments the insurers then caved in immediately and, to their credit, paid promptly. Otherwise, he could have been at the loss of over £2,000 - late 1990s.

I said that much depends on the policy wording because IMHO the wording is only one part of the argument the other element being the matter of contractual interpretation.

BTW I spoke too soon. The policy wording I was looking at when posting #5 contained no wording on which to differentiate between maintenance and construction. What did I get yesterday only a renewal notice for our house insurance in which they are now requiring prior notification of any construction type work as distinct from maintenance work ! An evolving issue as they say

Just a small question Leo,Ravima or anyone.Does home insurance normally cover tarmac repairs to the street of a 20 year old house in ireland.thanks

No, insurance does not cover general repairs, maintenance or upkeep. It is intended to make good after an insurable event, like an accident, fire, flood, etc..

Also, streets are rarely the property of a home owner bar in private developments where they are owned collectively by a group of property owners often via a management company. In those cases the owners or management company should be collecting annual fees to cover maintenance and repair costs to shared infrastructure.

Leo said:

No, insurance does not cover general repairs, maintenance or upkeep. It is intended to make good after an insurable event, like an accident, fire, flood, etc..

Also, streets are rarely the property of a home owner bar in private developments where they are owned collectively by a group of property owners often via a management company. In those cases the owners or management company should be collecting annual fees to cover maintenance and repair costs to shared infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Many thanks Leo. Sorry i should have explained that this is a private detached 4 bed bungalow on a half acre site a mile outside the town and the driveway and street are my property also.Damage caused caused by oil leaking from vehicles. etc.

DK123 said:

Damage caused caused by oil leaking from vehicles. etc.

Click to expand...

Maybe the policy accidental damage cover (if applicable) might cover this? Although letting vehicles leak fluids that cause damage might be considered negligence and thus not be covered? Check the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

If you claim for damage caused by a vehicle, the insurers are likely to go after the vehicle owners' insurance to cover their costs.

Read the terms of your policy, some will exclude driveways and most will exclude issues that happen over time.