liability insurance for inspectors

Status
Not open for further replies.

smallfish

Senior Member
Location
Detroit
I am considering a position as an electrical inspector in my city. I will ask if liability insurance for myself as inspector will be offered. But before I do, I would like to know about your experiences acquiring insurance in order to protect yourselves from possible litigation as an electrical inspector.
 
If working for a government, you will not need insurance. They are held harmless. Just kidding, but no insurance is needed on your part. The city is self insured.
 
Cavie is correct, you don't need it. Any and all protection is provided to you through state and federal laws. In the event you are named in a lawsuit, the city has an attorney or will hire one for you.

I suggest you read the book "Legal Aspects of Code Administration" offered by ICC. In this book you will learn about this issues and how preemption, sovereign immunity, declaratory relief, due process, public duty doctrine, discretionary authority, and a whole bunch of other legal terms are established to protect code officials.

Go to: www.iccsafe.org to get yourself a copy.

Also go to: iaei.org for information about being an electrical inspector and all that comes with it.
 
You should be ok but be carefull of who you red tag on the 10th floor.Only heard of one inspector threatened with being thrown off the building.He resigned the next day
 
When I began my career as an inspector, they told me I only had to do two things:

1.) gain 50 lbs

2.) get a lobotomy:D


Seriously, best advice I ever got - leave the job at the job. Don't take it home with you.

Just read a thread recently about a guy harping about his helper taking too long. The helper left the jobsite and went about his business. The boss took the frustration home with him, and vented on the thread. The helper was still controlling the boss's attitude hours after leaving the jobsite. Easy to get caught up in, but you have to constantly be aware of your attitude - and how it affects you.

The temptation is to take out your frustration with the next inspection. Much better to stay with the original inspection and the cause of your frustration and talk it out to some form of resolution before heading on. Easy to say, harder to do.

But the Sparky will respect you more next time if you talk with him directly rather than to go off complaining about him to others. You will also respect yourself more, and you will need that. Somethimes it can feel awfully lonely when you know you made the right call and the ranting begins......


Good Luck!
 
bphgravity said:
Cavie is correct, you don't need it. Any and all protection is provided to you through state and federal laws. In the event you are named in a lawsuit, the city has an attorney or will hire one for you.
What if the inspector is an employee of a third party contractor, hired by the jurisdiction to perform inspections? If it was me in such a situation, I think I'd have my own insurance.

My wife is a nurse, and although insured by her employer professionally, she still has her own nurse's malpractice insurance. I sorta see a parallel here.
 
mdshunk said:
My wife is a nurse, and although insured by her employer professionally, she still has her own nurse's malpractice insurance. I sorta see a parallel here.

No. There is a huge difference. Your wife has an obligation to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another person.

On the other hand, inspectors are under a public duty doctrine. That is, the duty or obligation is to the public at large and not to any one specific person.

There are a couple of exceptions. For example, if the plantiff can establish that the inspector owes a specific duty to a class of people for which the person belongs, they may have a case.

Negligence and tort is very hard to prove in the case of an inspector. Even if the inspector is found to be in breach of duty from malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, most courts will find the plantiff and/or other defendents had "contributory negligence".

That is, the inspector didn't actually create the hazard or make the improper installation, the owner and/or his representative did. It seems like a fine line but that line is very broad in a court of law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top