essuu at ourshack.com
Wed May 2 12:32:06 BST 2012
On 02/05/2012 00:04, Dirk Koopman wrote:
> The problem with PI is that you have to have it when the punter makes
> the claim, not (just) when you did the work. Which means that if the
> BBC (just talking very hypothetically) wants to sue three years after
> you left them, and you have no PI in force, then you could be stuffed.
You can get what the insurance industry calls run-on insurance to cover
you for claims arising from past work. It's relatively cheap if you're
no longer contracting.
> I have successfully argued, in a non IR35 threatening way, that the
> customer has to test and accept the work that I do. Once (s)he has
> accepted the work, and they sell as theirs, then they must accept
PI insurance should also cover making non-code related mistakes that
could be deemed unprofessional. For instance if you accidentally
breached a confidentiality agreement, resulting in a substantive loss
for the client you might find that they'll sue you for the loss. PI
insurance should be there to protect you.
Personally I think it's a waste of money, I don't think I've ever heard
of a contractor in the software industries we typically work in ever
being sued for something that PI would protect.
More information about the london.pm