Examiner liability cover

[Fokkerwokker]

I am shortly to embark on freelance simulator examining for a training organisation. I have been asked, by them, to provide evidence of examiner liability cover prior to being let loose on customer's pilots.

Could any kind soul point me in the right direction with insurance company recommendations please?

Thanks for any top tips.

FW

[FlyingOfficerKite]

FokkerWokker

Maybe first of all you should ask why cover is required; the terms and conditions that any such cover must provide and the indemnity limit?

I have never known any simulator instructors requiring professional indemnity insurance cover?! easyJet used to employ 'freelance' sim instructors, but whether they had cover or not I don't know, but I doubt it?

It couldn't be a ploy to 'put you off' or to entice you to become an 'employee' could it?

KR

FOK

[Whopity]

I woulkd suggest that its the Examiners responsibility to check that the company for whom they are working has appropriate liability insurance which includes the Examiners activities whilst working on their premises in their devices.
From the CAA Examiners Handbook2.18 Insurance
2.18.1 Examiners should always clarify their position regarding insurance before conducting a test. Although aircraft in the UK must now carry third party insurance cover, this cover may be limled to aircraft commanders who are members of a particular dub, group or school and may preclude flight instruction or examining. Furthermore, it is unlikely that such insurance will
cover personal injury or death of the examiner. Any cover that examiners currently enjoy by virtue of being employed at a flying school may well not cover them while undertaking examiner duties elsewhere. Examiners are therefore strongly recommended to take out insurance to cover themselves against both personal liability and personal injury while examining. Some insurance provision is made by the CAA, but only for Staff Examiners, IRES (not CREIIRR), FE(CPL)s and FIEs.
It sounds as though they do not have such insurance and it would be a good idea to investigate their statutary responsibility if its in a STD located in an industriual building.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Quite.

Although it's most likely this bit of the text which is causing the query to arise in the first place:

Examiners are therefore strongly recommended to take out insurance to cover themselves against both personal liability and personal injury while examining.Unless you form a limited company (under English law) and employ yourself as a director of that company (as do most freelance 'contractors') it is difficult to see how you will otherwise limit your liability. If you did that you could obtain public liability (against personal liability) and employer's liability (against personal injury) insurance, although you would also need professional indemnity insurance as well (against professional negligence).

This is standard practice with most professionals in private practice/self-employment (me included).

As Whopity points out, why has the employer not taken out its own insurance? As an employee you (should) have all the benefits of the above insurances.

Hence the comments in my original Post.

You are right to question the issue and well advised not to under-estimate the implications of liability - even when examining in the relative safety of a simulator. The consequences of a mistake on your part leading to death, or worse still (from a financial point of view) injury to the 'student' does not bear thinking about if the necessary insurance provisions are not in place.

This is not about competence (professional negligence) as much as it is about personal liability/injury should something untoward happen in the simulator - a fire is the obvious example - where, perhaps through your own errors and/or omissions damage and/or injury is caused.

If I were you I would question very carefully the reasons raised by Whopity and not leave yourself open to becoming the 'scapegoat' should action leading to liability arise.

I can't help but think that the employer is putting the onus on you in an attempt to avoid liability themselves.

Remember corporate neglience is a criminal offence, punishable by a charge of corporate manslaughter in the worst case - and people have already been imprisoned, so don't under-estimate the liability, as I mentioned above.

In this litigeous World, if corporations and individuals can avoid liability, naturally they will.

KR

FOK