Surely if the condition report you did says it is satisfactory then the place burns down the next day and it is proved beyond doubt that the installation was never satisfactory then your PI insurance will pay up when the owner sues you?? My understanding is that PI is for advice given rather than any action done. He said it was safe - PI He broke it - PL
The point of conducting the Inspection, is to ascertain whether the installation is safe for continued use. By stating that the installation is ‘Satisfactory’ and the date the installation should be next inspected you as the Inspector are stating the installation (barring any changes) is safe until that date.
Yes-ish - on the right lines, but this simplification risks a misunderstanding. If an end-user suffers any loss through damage to property or injury to person as a result of actions of your business then this is a PL claim. The damages claimed are for damage to property/injury If you provide advice to a middle-man (main contractor, architect etc.) who relies on your advice to build something and that something causes damage to property or injury to third parties, then the third party will claim on the middle mans PL, BUT the middleman will then claim against your PI for FINANCIAL loss. The middleman didn't suffer any property damage or injury, they only suffered financially - loss of profit, legal costs, consequential loss (maybe depending on policy), costs of rectification. It is these FINANCIAL risks that PI mainly insures you against but ONLY if you are negligent (i.e. you acted with the skill and care expected of a professional in your field). If you sign up to "fitness for purpose" the claimant doesn't have to prove negligence, only that whatever you designed didn't meet the specification, in which case you could be high and dry because PI quite likely won't cover you. I am not an insurance professional, just someone who reads a lot of commercial contracts and policies in the course of my day job. IMHO issuing test certificates is not a PI risk. You didn't design the test standard, you didn't design the test procedure, you have no professional input in to the design of the test report. What you do is an action in carrying out a set procedure to match an installation against a set of parameters and say whether it does or does not meet those parameters. If you say it does, when it doesn't, any claim for subsequent damages will be against your action of how you carried out the test, not your professional advice on what the test consists of - Public liability sorry to repeat earlier posts with another long response, but this is an important distinction. Of course, like everything insurance it isn't quite black and white because there is overlap. For example, PI may also provide cover for property damage and injury to YOUR client (i.e. the middleman) as a direct result of your design/advice to them. (the beam you designed, but the main contractor installed, broke and fell on top of the main contractors head because it was too small)
I'm guessing that would apply to a visual inspection which would obviously be very very limited in scope. -