Do I need insurance?

[eteb3]

I work part time as a teacher through an agency. I think legally I'm a "worker", not an employee. Certainly my contractual relationship is with the agency and not with the schools I work for. I also have a tutoring business, teaching students in my own home.

Do folks think I need insurance for either role?

I've spoken to one broker who insists the school covers my professional indemnity. I can't see why they would, because they don't have the liability: it's personal to me as a professional. Any thoughts?

As a "worker" in a school am I in the frame for public liability? I assume not: members of the public with a beef sue the school, and a school with a beef sues the agency. But confirmation of that would be good.

Then for my own business, I'm thinking of putting a limitation clause in the contract: max liability £5k, or similar, and then self-insure.

Any and all thoughts welcome. Thanks.

 

[Gecko001]

By law you do not need insurance unless you are an employer, but you might consider getting it for tutoring in your home.

I think your insurance company is correct about you not needing insurance for working in a school as a tutor or subbing etc. You could ask the school to confirm this.

Are you in a teachers' union? A teachers' union rep. told me that teachers who belong to a teachers' union get free insurance cover from their union. However, since cases for negligence will usually be taken against the school rather than the teacher personally, I am not sure what exactly the insurance that comes with union membership covers.

 

[fisicx]

When I tutored the agency had insurance. I was also a member of a teaching union who also provided legal cover.

You would be daft not to have insurance. Especially if the pupils gang up and put in a complaint (which they do).

 

[xjr13m]

If you have members of the public visiting your home in the course of your business then you should certainly have public liability insurance in my opinion.

You may also consider having professional liability insurance in the event an over zealous parent seeks redress for their child not getting their expected grades etc. Sounds ridiculous but I'm sure these things happen.

 

[eteb3]

Thanks all.

A teachers' union rep. told me that teachers who belong to a teachers' union get free insurance cover from their union.

This was always my understanding too, but when I asked my union for the details of cover, they told me there’s no insurance at all. I checked with the behemoth NEU, and they don’t do it either. Hence this query. I don’t know if this is a change in the last 20 years I’ve been teaching - conceivably @Newchodge would know.

 

[WaveJumper]

When I tutored the agency had insurance. I was also a member of a teaching union who also provided legal cover.

You would be daft not to have insurance. Especially if the pupils gang up and put in a complaint (which they do).

Son's wife is Deputy Head of Science and the amount of parents complaining to the school over one thing or the other seems to be at an epidemic level these days I get left speechless as some of the ridiculous things they complain about there seems to be very little support for the schools or teachers these days.

So yes I would defiantly make sure i had some form of insurance cover especially if not covered directly by the school and if you are inviting students into your home for private tuition or even visiting theirs get covered.

@Frank the Insurance guy may have a view

 

[Newchodge]

Thanks all.


This was always my understanding too, but when I asked my union for the details of cover, they told me there’s no insurance at all. I checked with the behemoth NEU, and they don’t do it either. Hence this query. I don’t know if this is a change in the last 20 years I’ve been teaching - conceivably @Newchodge would know.

Afraid not. The only professional union I worked with was the BMA and they certainly di not pay for profesional indemnity! Unions may offer legal advice cover for non-employment issues.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

I work part time as a teacher through an agency. I think legally I'm a "worker", not an employee. Certainly my contractual relationship is with the agency and not with the schools I work for. I also have a tutoring business, teaching students in my own home.

Do folks think I need insurance for either role?

There is no legal requirement for you to have any insurance here - it is up to you, but advisable!

As an employee (worker) of the school, the school will be legally required to provide Employers Liability cover (in case any employees/workers are injured). The school will also be responsible for any claims made against the school for injury, loss or damage they may cause. This does not prevent someone claiming against you personally - I suspect most schools provide an indemnity to their teachers to cover any claims made direct against individuals (but worth checking with them).

As for your own tutoring business:
1. You need to notify your home insurers to make them aware
2. Insurance is advisable (Public Liability especially, to cover any injury you may cause to a student) - But be aware that most insurers will exclude claims relating to Abuse or similar claims - Especially if you are providing one-to-one tuition. Markel specialise in this area of insurance - you can obtain a quote from them direct here: https://www.markeluk.com/business-insurance/teachers-tutors-insurance

 

[Gecko001]

When I tutored the agency had insurance. I was also a member of a teaching union who also provided legal cover.

You would be daft not to have insurance. Especially if the pupils gang up and put in a complaint (which they do).

When you say legal cover, do you mean cover to pay for legal representation if more than a civil case is brought, ie. a criminal case, in connection with your work as a teacher.

 

[fisicx]

When you say legal cover, do you mean cover to pay for legal representation if more than a civil case is brought, ie. a criminal case, in connection with your work as a teacher.

Correct.

 

[eteb3]

Correct

Ok. Strictly that’s not insurance, but an agreement by the union to give or arrange advice or representation. The manner of discharging the union’s side of the bargain is entirely discretionary. Most of the time I’d be happy trusting a union’s bona fides, but there are enough stories of ostracism for petty or political reasons that I wouldn’t want to rely on it.

 

[Nathanto]

Then for my own business, I'm thinking of putting a limitation clause in the contract: max liability £5k, or similar, and then self-insure.

You probably know already but for the avoidance of doubt you cannot limit liability for misrepresentation, personal injury or death irrespective of what your contract says. Similarly any contract terms that are considered unfair or unreasonable will also be treated as null and void.

 

[eteb3]

@Nathanto thanks. I was aware, and was reckoning that would limit my professional liability (say if I teach to the wrong exam board), with full liability under public and occupier's liability.

As for your own tutoring business:
1. You need to notify your home insurers to make them aware
2. Insurance is advisable (Public Liability especially, to cover any injury you may cause to a student) - But be aware that most insurers will exclude claims relating to Abuse or similar claims

Thanks for this. I thought, "Why would I need insurance for abuse?!" I'm not planning on abusing anyone. But then I guess a claim doesn't have to be true to have a reasonable prospect of success, or cause a major headache before it's withdrawn. Looks like Markel don't exclude it - good tip.

Having read the general exclusions, every policy says they exclude "contractual liabilities you wouldn't have had in the absence of the agreement". That seems to be any liability at all apart from professional negligence, since the basis of the relationship is contractual: they pay me to tutor them. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Newchodge]

@Nathanto thanks. I was aware, and was reckoning that would limit my professional liability (say if I teach to the wrong exam board), with full liability under public and occupier's liability.


Thanks for this. I thought, "Why would I need insurance for abuse?!" I'm not planning on abusing anyone. But then I guess a claim doesn't have to be true to have a reasonable prospect of success, or cause a major headache before it's withdrawn. Looks like Markel don't exclude it - good tip.

Having read the general exclusions, every policy says they exclude "contractual liabilities you wouldn't have had in the absence of the agreement". That seems to be any liability at all apart from professional negligence, since the basis of the relationship is contractual: they pay me to tutor them. Any thoughts on that?

You contract to provide (say) Maths tutoring, but your student then asks you about physics,and you answer wrongly. That would not be covered as you do not contract to provide physics tutoring. I think.

 

[eteb3]

You contract to provide (say) Maths tutoring, but your student then asks you about physics,and you answer wrongly. That would not be covered as you do not contract to provide physics tutoring. I think.

It's the other way round. I think. That ^ would be a liability not covered because it's not in the contract.

Conceivably:
- professional liability is covered because it arises from non-contractual "assumption of responsibility" (hence a professional can be liable even as a volunteer);
- public liability is covered because it's a liability to someone in their capacity as a member of the public, not as a customer (so only covers tripping over the lawnmower on the way up the drive, same as for the postman)

?

 

[Newchodge]

It's the other way round. I think. That ^ would be a liability not covered because it's not in the contract.

That's what I said.

 

[eteb3]

That's what I said.

Yeah I know! I don't think that's an accurate gloss on the exclusion. But very likely because I made a hash of the wording from memory. Here it is verbatim (from one provider; I dare say others vary a bit, but the gist is the same everywhere):

"Cover excludes:
Contractual agreements making you responsible for losses that would not exist in the absence of the agreement"

So if I contract with someone, and the contract makes me responsible for loss (as every contract must, by definition), I'm not covered. That is, any work within the scope of the contract is excluded from the policy.

 

[Newchodge]

Yeah I know! I don't think that's an accurate gloss on the exclusion. But very likely because I made a hash of the wording from memory. Here it is verbatim (from one provider; I dare say others vary a bit, but the gist is the same everywhere):

"Cover excludes:
Contractual agreements making you responsible for losses that would not exist in the absence of the agreement"

So if I contract with someone, and the contract makes me responsible for loss (as every contract must, by definition), I'm not covered. That is, any work within the scope of the contract is excluded from the policy.

Try this. I have cover for employer's liability. That means if I am responsible for harm to my employee, the insurance will pay.

However if the contract states that I will be responsible for any harm caused ar work to my employee, however caused, the insurance will not be laible.

I will have contracted to pay my employee if they choose to try and do a cartwheel across the office and collide with a desk that is in its proper place. Without the contract I would have no liability, so the insurance will not pay.

 

[FreddyG]

You contract to provide (say) Maths tutoring, but your student then asks you about physics,and you answer wrongly. That would not be covered as you do not contract to provide physics tutoring. I think.

Physics is IMO just Applied Mathematics. P=VI, V=IR, Fluid Dynamics, all that stuff. According to Google (today's unerring Fountain of Truth) there are seven main topics - namely optics, electromagnetism, relativity, thermodynamics, acoustics, quantum physics, and mechanics. All very mathematical!

I will have contracted to pay my employee if they choose to try and do a cartwheel across the office and collide with a desk that is in its proper place. Without the contract I would have no liability, so the insurance will not pay.

Someone has been spying on me at work! (I did practice a pratfall from a tree the other day, but that was inadvertent!)

One thing I have noticed, is that in the UK, people are insured against anything and everything! One day, I'll come across a household insurance policy that includes a provision for being eaten alive by whelks on a Shrove Tuesday!

In Germany, cheating on an insurance claim has become so popular that it is now known as Volkssport Nummer 1—your friendly local insurance broker will even help you do this! It has made instance rather expensive over the years!

"Sorry to hear about your carpet shop going up in ze flames last veek, Gustaff!"
"No! No! Not ze last veek. Zat's next veek, you fool!"

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

Having read the general exclusions, every policy says they exclude "contractual liabilities you wouldn't have had in the absence of the agreement". That seems to be any liability at all apart from professional negligence, since the basis of the relationship is contractual: they pay me to tutor them. Any thoughts on that?

What insurers want be clear to exclude here is where you have agreed liabilities in your contract that would not apply in the absence of the contract. In short, this is where you agree in the contract to increase your liability - an example would be where you agree in the contract to pay your customer £x if they do not pass or reach a specific grade - If a claim is then made against you alleging your training was so inferior that this caused them to not meet the grade and they sue you for the agreed compensation in the contract, this would not specifically be covered by the policy (as you have agreed conditions over and above what you would be legally liable to pay). Note - in this example it is the agreed compensation that in itself would not be covered, however the insurance policy would still pay compensation/damages if the customer was able to prove a financial loss as a result of your negligence, errors etc.

Sorry - its a bit wordy. Its the sort of question/answer that is easy to explain verbally on a call.

Easier example:
1. IT Software company (supplier) - engaged to upgrade a customer legacy/old IT System
2. Supplier agrees in contract to pay £x per day if not completed by Y Date
3. Work not completed by Y Date
4. Insurer would not pay the delay payment agreed in the contract as this is a contractual agreement that goes above what the supplier would have to pay if it was not in the contract

 

[eteb3]

Thanks, Frank. Confirms Newchodge's interpretation.

Jolly useful forum, this!