Originally Posted by
Richard Rushing
Boys and girls, this still did not clarify a damn thing ... Quote:
So, we are back to square one. Right where we started... No freakin definition other than
it appears both areas of in$urance requirements (general liability and professional liability) have to be covered.
RR
As I was trying to enjoy the evening between "Dancing With the Stars" and "Hannity & Colmes" I was digging through the AG's legalese ... Damn ... what a bunch of
. I guess they get paid by the printed word on the pages with tons of references to Lord knows what suit they can refer to.
Anyway ... I've bolded a portion or Rich's statement in that I also took away from the AG's Opinion that we are now "required" to carry
GL along with E&O.
I hope I'm off base on what I read ... not that it makes any difference as in$urance is a personal business decision and I strongly think that is the way it should be handled. My view (for
my business) is that I feel it is important for me to have both GL and E&O and that is and should be
my decision. I do carry both ... again
my business decision.
What irritates the heck out of me is the sleight of hand
mandate that came about with E&O and now an
AG opinion that may also "require"
both GL & E&O ??
It may just be me reading far more into the gobbledy-gook opinion that I find hard to fathom. I may have my attorney in Houston review and put it in "plain english" for me.
I'm off my soapbox now
