Balking at Certificate of Insurance

[RonBaldwin]

Thanks everyone for the input and opinions.

 

I understand it's an industry standard, and that most people in the industry know what I'm asking for.

It's hard to know how to respond to things like;

 

"if we hire someone with their gear, it's up to them to provide insurance since they will be there" - ie, it's NOT like a camera rental because the owner is there.

and

"we've never had to do this before when we hire people with their gear" - which doesn't make it right.

 

Because basically I'm saying to the client, "you are wrong, and I am right. Now hire me." =)

It's always the subtile things that I want to focus on. Like, not making them feel dumb. I don't want to do that.

ALSO...It's important to me to not seem hard to deal with. Regardless of if I'm in "the right" I don't want to be an ass about it. (I know it only takes a second to have a COI sent to me)

 

What I think I'm going to do it write up a little script on my policys, so that It's not something I have to concoct while I'm on the phone. Something like. "So since we haven't worked together before let me go over a few things I require as a steadicam owner / operator. It's industry standard stuff, but I'll cover it anyway...etc"

 

Thanks again for everyone's input and experiences.

 

another sticky issue that you touched on is comparing your steadicam gear to the assistant's magliner, porta-brace, and maybe even his (drum roll) cine-tape! Our steadicams are not only of much more value and complexity, but it is a high dollar item not under our direct supervision at all times. Your $7k preston handset, the $4k remote iris controller, the who-knows-how-the-fack-much wireless video receiver/antennas (could be as much as $10k with some of the newer systems out), and often the $25k to $35k sled is carried away from you while you stay on set to talk to the director...or more importantly chat up a lovely background artist. That's a lot of investment in the hands of chaps who may have just had a slimy piece of pizza or just got baked with the grips and the afore mentioned hot extra.

 

rb

[Bryan Trieb]

Would really like to hear opinions on the following situation that happened a few years ago.

 

Rig is built, operator flying production's camera/lens. Rig strapped on, operator standing still asking for a lighting tweak. Pro arm rod end snaps suddenly, and rig crashes on the ground. Camera and lens are fine. Sled and arm need repair. Production says "we won't pay for that, it's just like if a microphone stops working, we expect the sound company to fix/replace it as it is their owned equipment".

Operator has insurance, as well as a COI from production, production refuses to put the claim through.

 

Client gives operator quite a lot of work over the years and for years to come, so the effort to preserve positive relations is paramount.

 

Thoughts?

 

Cheers!

Bry

[Alfeo Dixon SOC]

Hey Bryan, try this for a script...

 

I understand that you do not want to cover me with a COI... but because I can not trust anyone else with my gear, due to your lack of insurance coverage, I will be the only one handling my gear. I will also now require the following...

• 1 hour percall to pull my rig out of my vehicle to prepare it for the days work
• 1 hour of additional wrap time to break it down return it back to my vehicle for transport each day
• Portal to Portal for the transportation from my secure parking area each day
• I will require a walk through to direct the director on what the shot will be (because MY equipment has to be under MY direction)
• A rehearsal before each new setup
• An additional meal penalty due to me having to safety my gear before lunch

[Alfeo Dixon SOC]

Rig is built, operator flying production's camera/lens. Rig strapped on, operator standing still asking for a lighting tweak. Pro arm rod end snaps suddenly, and rig crashes on the ground. Camera and lens are fine. Sled and arm need repair. Production says "we won't pay for that, it's just like if a microphone stops working, we expect the sound company to fix/replace it as it is their owned equipment".

Operator has insurance, as well as a COI from production, production refuses to put the claim through.

Normal wear and tear and maintenance is your responsibility, if its faulty gear under warranty, that should be covered by the manufacture. I don't see much of a leg for him to stand on with the production co

[RonBaldwin]

Would really like to hear opinions on the following situation that happened a few years ago.

 

Rig is built, operator flying production's camera/lens. Rig strapped on, operator standing still asking for a lighting tweak. Pro arm rod end snaps suddenly, and rig crashes on the ground. Camera and lens are fine. Sled and arm need repair. Production says "we won't pay for that, it's just like if a microphone stops working, we expect the sound company to fix/replace it as it is their owned equipment".

Operator has insurance, as well as a COI from production, production refuses to put the claim through.

 

Client gives operator quite a lot of work over the years and for years to come, so the effort to preserve positive relations is paramount.

 

Thoughts?

 

Cheers!

Bry

 

I had that exact thing happen (only it was a 3A arm). Production wouldn't touch it in my case either. They said I showed up with faulty equipment. I mentioned that they promised me a LW and got a G2 conversion kit, which used to be the camera where ops said "too heavy" -- almost makes me giggle saying that with all these heavy loads operators of dubious intelligence are flying on a regular basis these days.

 

Thank god for Walter Dolle. Production picked up the shipping but wouldn't even pay my deductible.

 

On another show I was doing a bunch of running shots and I was chatting with the upm about worst case scenarios. He said Universal wouldn't cover me if I fell and broke something because I should have know better and that it is dangerous to run with all that gear.

 

oy

[Mark Schlicher]

 

"if we hire someone with their gear, it's up to them to provide insurance since they will be there" - ie, it's NOT like a camera rental because the owner is there.

 

 

I got a variation of that today. "We can provide a COI but usually subcontractors provide me with a COI, especially if the gear is under their care, custody, and control." I take this (relatively young) producer at face value that he really does work that way with (often hungry and up-and-coming) crew, but it made for an awkward moment, since this is the first time I've been hired by this company and I found myself balancing between staking out my position clearly, without appearing "difficult" right out of the gate.

 

The "under my care custody and control" principle feels tricky....especially considering a small crew where there may not be many others touching the rig through the day, so this position makes sense to the producer.

[Brian Freesh]

The moment the director/producer/whomever instructs you to do a steadicam shot, the use of it is under their control, unless you deem it unsafe.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

The moment the director/producer/whomever instructs you to do a steadicam shot, the use of it is under their control, unless you deem it unsafe.

 

Incorrect. The reason we need an insurance cert is because we have others building and moving our equipment that are not under our direct control. It has nothing to do with being directed.

[Brian Freesh]

As Mark already seemed uncertain that would happen on this shoot, I offered another possible justification for his argument. One that I personally believe is reasonable. In the end I suppose justification doesn't matter so long as he gets the COI and the deal memo clearly states who's responsible for L&D and liability.

 

Mark, as has been said here before, it's your policy whether they agree or not, whether you give them a justification they agree with or not. The justification you and Eric mentioned is of course the best (and the truth) and you should not need to say more. If they do not wish to agree to your terms, you do not need to take the job. It's up to you if you wish to take the risk.

[Rob Vuona SOC]

As Mark already seemed uncertain that would happen on this shoot, I offered another possible justification for his argument. One that I personally believe is reasonable. In the end I suppose justification doesn't matter so long as he gets the COI and the deal memo clearly states who's responsible for L&D and liability.

 

Mark, as has been said here before, it's your policy whether they agree or not, whether you give them a justification they agree with or not. The justification you and Eric mentioned is of course the best (and the truth) and you should not need to say more. If they do not wish to agree to your terms, you do not need to take the job. It's up to you if you wish to take the risk.

 

Brian your partially correct,

It is up to Mark weather he takes the gig or not, but It has been in my experience, which I believe has been stated before, that sometimes these people and companies just don't know the details involved with giving you the COI. There has been more than once that I have had to educate the client and explain to the legal department and what works better than anything else is send them a copy of one that you have recently received.

 

If nothing else Mark, educate them regarding the COI, weather you take the job or not, I suggest NOT. Not without the COI, as you have read and heard it before, strange things can happen on set

[Douglas John Kropla]

I don't have the years of experience that many of you have in this business. I just recently closed a health/pilates studio. As our lease was up we decided to close shop. We were threatened by our landlords who stated that we had agreed to stay and that our renewal was a done deal, a verbal agreement and that if we did not resign the lease agreement they would sew us for almost $300,000.00. We took our piece of paper to our lawyer who stated quote matter of fact that if we went to court we had a 50/50 chance of losing. We fortunately have a very good lawyer and we did not lose. As a matter of fact it never went to court. The lesson here is a piece of paper is only as good as the lawyer behind it. Just my own personal experience. Good luck Bryan.

[Twojay Dhillon]

Just heard this back from production: "...i wont have your cert until Monday, but it just names you as additionally insured,

your covered, i just havent heard what the deductible is yet..."

 

Excuse me for pondering this, but, what the bleeding hell does the deductible amount have to do with me? Surely they're not insinuating that I would be paying the deductible if anything happened to my equip while on their production, right?

Anybody have an angle/advise on this? Thanks.

 

*2*

[Tommy Stork]

Just heard this back from production: "...i wont have your cert until Monday, but it just names you as additionally insured,

your covered, i just havent heard what the deductible is yet..."

 

Excuse me for pondering this, but, what the bleeding hell does the deductible amount have to do with me? Surely they're not insinuating that I would be paying the deductible if anything happened to my equip while on their production, right?

Anybody have an angle/advise on this? Thanks.

 

*2*

 

I've recently started putting in my deal memo that production is responsible for paying the deductible on the insurance in the event a claim is filed. I'm not sure if this is reasonable or not, or redundant, but no one has ever said anything about it. Not sure if we're on the hook for the deductible or not. Seems like we might be?

[Mark Schlicher]

Since the original thread, I worked things out. The production company turned out to be just ignorant of how things needed to work. When I patiently explained why I needed the cert, they got with their insurance company and hooked me right up.

 

As I understand it, the cert has no legal force itself...it's just a document that confirms that the production has loss and liability insurance and that you would be covered by it.

 

Who pays deductable is a separate matter, one that ought to be discussed and covered by your deal memo.

 

So yeah, production may be insinuating that they would not cover their deductable, and that would be important to clear up!

 

I've also come to understand that you should also have your own insurance policy to back yourself up in case a production weasels out of a claim on their policy, or for direct clients, etc. I took care of that in January.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

As I understand it, the cert has no legal force itself...it's just a document that confirms that the production has loss and liability insurance and that you would be covered by it.

 

Who pays deductable is a separate matter, one that ought to be discussed and covered by your deal memo.

 

So yeah, production may be insinuating that they would not cover their deductable, and that would be important to clear up!

 

I've also come to understand that you should also have your own insurance policy to back yourself up in case a production weasels out of a claim on their policy, or for direct clients, etc. I took care of that in January.

 

 

You're making this too complex.

 

You need to be listed as "additional loss payee" the cert most certainly has legal binding it's a contract between you, the production company and the insurance company, it states that if you're gear is damaged you are the first paid for that damage, not the production company. It also clears up the question about deductible, that why you are "LOSS PAYEE" if there is a loss they PAY you, that's it, no deductible on your part, their insurance COVERS you.