Hi all - could anyone advise on what would be the typical level of cover a H & S consultant should take out for Public Liability Insurance and for Professional Indemnity Insurance? Also any guide on what premiums would be expected would be appreciated. Thanks FH

The type of business that you wish to have covereed and your perceived level of competence will also have an effect. ie - if you do "asbestos" other than general information, expect your premium to be considerably higher. If you are perceived as lower down the competence scale by the prospective insurer, again, expect an increase in premiums. My PII insurer keeps telling me that my premiums have actually gone down "in real terms"! Any guesses as to what that really means? Frank Hallett

Have you read the free IOSH guide available under 'books & resources' above? No simple answer, but may help your decision process about this and other aspects of consultancy?

FH, As already stated, it's "horses for courses", i.e. if you are going to be involved in asbestos or construction activities, then expect a hike in your premium. My cover for both PI & PL is £1 million, with a premium of just under £300 pa. However, my advice is to choose a provider that you can actually talk to rather than being solely web based (cheaper I know!) & will provide you cover for "one off" contracts which may not be covered by your existing premium.

BEWARE Insurance is becoming an unscrupulous business. So much so the law surrounding material facts is likely to be changed. Read the small print very carefully !

Hi Zyggy - did you mean to direct your comment to myself or fornhelper? BJC - insurance has always been an unscrupulous business in many peoples eyes! The probable changes that you refer to could well be the attempt to remove the current requirement for you to inform the Insurer of all "relevant information" and for them to retain the ability to then exclude or reduce your claim because you hadn't disclosed some other fact that has little or no relevance to your claim but could be considered as "relevant" if you've got a good enough lawyer [they do!]. The proposed change is to prevent [or at least minimise] this by requiring insurers to provide properly defined questions that you have to answer and thereby reduce the "black hole" effect when the insurer is attempting to reduce or prevent paying out out. In essence, the common, and perceptively abused, "wider than any horizon" criteria of "in utmost good faith" that is currently the basis on which the insurance is provided is being provided will be curtailed somewhat - we don't know by how much yet as it appears that legislating in this area has fallen off the current Govt agenda after an initially enthusiastic adoption. Can't think why! Frank Hallett