TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Kirk Turner reports: <<I am considering a contract to edit a manual for
a state agency. In the contract, the company requires that I maintain
professional liability insurance (errors and omission insurance).>>
Caveat: My response applies only to editing, here in non-litigious
Canada; YMMV in the highly litigious U.S. and elsewhere in the world.
In my experience, this is a negotiable clause just like any other
clause in a contract. Most governments seem to include this as part of
the "boilerplate" (standard terms) for all contracts, and many simply
delete the clause from the contract when you point out that it's not
relevant. For a regular government client, I explained to them the cost
of this insurance (thousands of dollars), pointed out that the maximum
potential loss would be limited to the reprinting of the book if the
error were major (very low risk; see below), and reminded them that I'd
have to add this cost to the bill. They usually aren't interested in
paying this much extra.
My standard terms specify that as the editor, all my edits are
suggestions, and that it is the client's responsibility to confirm the
correctness of everything that I do because I am not a PhD or certified
professional (e.g., for engineering) in any of the dozens of subject
areas I edit in. I further add that in those cases where the author
doesn't like what I've done (perhaps because I inadvertently introduced
an error as a result of misunderstanding), they're free to work with me
over the phone or by e-mail to explain things so I can come up with
better wording.
Thus far, these terms have been accepted with only minor griping. If
the client won't accept those terms or the additional cost of the
insurance, I won't accept their contract. You may not have that luxury
(passing up work), so:
<<If this insurance isn't applicable, they require that I maintain a
commercial general liability policy covering my services.>>
Again, this is a boilerplate phrase that doesn't apply in many cases. A
local insurance broker (Quebec and Ontario) explained this specific
insurance to me as only relevant if clients come to your house; for
example, if they slip and fall, or if a bookcase full of dictionaries
falls on them, this insurance covers you against lawsuits. It does not
in any way take the place of errors and omissions insurance. (You may
also find "professional liability" insurance, which is similar but
different. Details elude me, so talk to a broker with expertise in your
legal jurisdiction.)
<<Any suggestions?>>
Propose that these conditions be deleted from the contract, and
replaced with something like what I specified above (i.e., that the
client is entirely responsible for quality control but that you'll work
with them until everyone agrees that your edits are satisfactory). This
is both a great way to cover yourself and an important way of reminding
the client that editing is a collaborative endeavor, and that both
editor and author must take responsibility for the results.
_Never_ accept a contract that places all responsibility for any errors
on you. Apart from the fact that it's like pasting a "kick me" sign on
your butt, it sets a really bad precedent for us as professionals. Yes,
we're required to exercise due diligence, but we're nobody's fall guys.
<< I just talked with my insurance lady, and she was not familiar with
this insurance.>>
Then you need a new insurance lady. <g> Try calling a broker who
specializes in professionals (e.g., doctors and lawyers). A generic
insurance salesdrone often knows nothing beyond the three basics (home,
automobile, health/disability). And note that you should expect a
certain amount of incomprehension of our profession, since editors and
writers aren't a familiar audience for such insurance. It's very rare
that anybody would bother to sue us, so as a result, we're not a
primary target for lawsuits and have no track record on which to base
costs.
Try contacting various editor associations to find out whether they
offer such insurance. As well, many insurance companies have an
"affinity marketing" or "association" department that caters to special
needs, such as those of the self-employed.
<<Any ideas on cost?>>
Depends entirely on your jurisdiction, since some jurisdictions limit
liability or provide other guidance on how such lawsuits are handled.
But because we editors have no "track record" in the eyes of the
actuaries who crunch the cost/benefit numbers for insurers, you can
expect the insurer to err on the side of caution. That means
$$$--several thousands in Canada the last time I checked, and
undoubtedly much more expensive in the U.S.
Try WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word today! Smooth migration of legacy
RoboHelp content into your new Help systems. EContent Magazine Decision-
maker review (October 2005) is here: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 2005 converts RoboHelp files with one click. Author with Word or any HTML editor. Visit our site to see a conversion demo movie and learn more. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
