Boys and girls, this still did not clarify a danm thing...
Quote:
Your predecessor also asked how to interpret the $100,000 per occurrence requirement if inspectors are required to have both general liability insurance and professional liability insurance; that is, whether the bill required a minimum of $100,000 per occurrence for each policy, or $100,000 combined coverage for both policies.
See Thorburn Letter,
supra note 1, at 1. Section 1102.114(c) requires real estate inspectors to "carry liability insurance with a minimum limit of $100,000 per
occurrence," not per insurance policy. Act of May 21, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1411, § 38, 2007 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 4825, 4834-35 (codified at Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 1102.114(c) (Vernon Supp. 2007) (emphasis added)). Thus, assuming that a real estate inspector has more than one policy applicable to the same occurrence, a combined coverage of $100,000 for that occurrence under the policies would comply with section 1102.114(c).
We have been informed that the Commission, at a meeting on June 4, 2007, issued an interim policy statement defining "liability insurance" in sections 38 and 39 to mean professional liability insurance, also known as errors and omissions insurance, until this office issues an opinion about the new requirements. See DeHay Letter,
supra note 2, at 2. We reiterate that the insurance policy, regardless of its name, must provide coverage for
non-intentional acts,
particularly acts performed in a negligent or incompetent manner within chapter 1102, subchapter G.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong... but the term "until this office issues an opinion" just happened. Since "This Office" just rendered it's oppinion, then the interim policy statement defining general liability as "professional liability" just expired!!
Now, since the interim policy has expired and the court ruled that we must have coverage (no matter what you call it) of $100,000 per occurrance, then you can ALSO say that acts, such as; UN-INTENTIONAL, NEGLIGENT OR UN-PROFESSIONAL can be *also* covered by general liability (i.e.; I did not secure my ladder and that sucker fell thru a window and caused extensive damage to a china cabinet and some heirlooms)... this could be *both* un-intentional and negligent (i.e.; falls under general liability).
On the other hand, if you have a claim agains you for (somehow) missing a jacked-up roof, that would fall under the E&O...
So, we are back to square one. Right where we started... No freakin definition other than it appears both areas of insurance requirements (general liability and professional liability) have to be covered.
RR
RR