PLS Act 8759.(a)(6) Written Contracts

[Robert Martin]

Where did Section 8759.(a)(6) come from:

(6) Disclosure of any existence of a current professional liability insurance policy covering the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer in responsible charge of the services.

As I read this, if you have Professional Liability Insurance (PLI) you must state so, but if you don't have (PLI) then don't say anything???

I admit I have been so busy with keeping my head above water working that I may have missed earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I'm bringing this back up.

[steffan]

New requirement that went into effect 1/1/25.
Was a part of AB 3253 as part of the sunset bill re-authorizing BPELSG.
The original recommendation presented during the Bill’s creation was to require all licensee’s to carry E&O in an attempt to somehow discourage unlicensed practice. That recommendation morphed into a lessor requirement in the final language only requiring disclosure of the existence of an E&O policy in any written contract.
I don’t understand how this will somehow discourage unlicensed practice. I tend to believe the underlying push was more against uninsured surveyors than unlicensed ones as the bill’s authors would like us to believe. Regardless, the intended result of either a reduction in unlicensed practice or an increase in insured surveyors remains to be seen.
I think it’s a valid argument that only active policies are required to be disclosed, not the lack of insurance.
Food for thought, if you have an active policy, but fail to disclose it, is that really something worthy of a citation? In that context it seems this mandate has the potential of making a criminal out of someone who chose to carry insurance.

[Ric7308]

Where did Section 8759.(a)(6) come from:

(6) Disclosure of any existence of a current professional liability insurance policy covering the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer in responsible charge of the services.

As I read this, if you have Professional Liability Insurance (PLI) you must state so, but if you don't have (PLI) then don't say anything???

I admit I have been so busy with keeping my head above water working that I may have missed earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I'm bringing this back up.

Yes Robert, you are reading the requirement in the law appropriately

[Ric7308]

New requirement that went into effect 1/1/25.
Was a part of AB 3253 as part of the sunset bill re-authorizing BPELSG.
The original recommendation presented during the Bill’s creation was to require all licensee’s to carry E&O in an attempt to somehow discourage unlicensed practice. That recommendation morphed into a lessor requirement in the final language only requiring disclosure of the existence of an E&O policy in any written contract.
I don’t understand how this will somehow discourage unlicensed practice. I tend to believe the underlying push was more against uninsured surveyors than unlicensed ones as the bill’s authors would like us to believe. Regardless, the intended result of either a reduction in unlicensed practice or an increase in insured surveyors remains to be seen.
I think it’s a valid argument that only active policies are required to be disclosed, not the lack of insurance.
Food for thought, if you have an active policy, but fail to disclose it, is that really something worthy of a citation? In that context it seems this mandate has the potential of making a criminal out of someone who chose to carry insurance.

Worthy of a citation? Maybe, depends on the specific situation that the Board is tasked with investigating. Is it a violation? Yes, just like the failure to include any one or more of the other required contract elements are.

There were concerns expressed by multiple parties that forcing professional liability insurance on the licensees regulated by the Board (Yes, all licensees - Board was not interested in only singling out one discipline) would result in unintended consequences and not necessarily make a significant impact to discourage unlicensed practice. Not all licensees who choose to not carry professional liability insurance are not automatically poor surveyors. Legislature will almost always lean towards putting the choice to hire one individual over another in the hands of the consumer.

One thing the professional land surveying community could easily do is to prepare marketing material to hand out to all clients and potential clients advocating benefits of a licensee being insured.

[jamesh1467]

I think it’s a valid argument that only active policies are required to be disclosed, not the lack of insurance.

Why? To me this is backward as a policy. If the intent is to encourage professionals to carry liability insurance, we just increased the burden of carrying the liability insurance. This should be flipped so that you increase the burden on those who do not have insurance so they have to disclose the LACK of liability insurance.

I don't think this is like make it or break it, but this is going to encourage people at the lower end of the market not to carry liability insurance. If they were on the fence, why carry it and have to expand your contract? Its more work to carry insurance than to not carry insurance.

Also on the violations, we are going to cite licenses for failure to disclose a good thing that shows they protect the public better than other licenses? So those who we are following the intentions of our laws are going to get cited for following our intentions and making minor mistakes, while those who don't follow our well meaning intentions don't even have to deal with it? Its just backwards.

Again this is just backwards. If the goal was to get everyone to carry insurance, it should increase the burden on licensees who don't carry insurance so they are encouraged to get insurance. Not increase the burden on those who already follow the underlying intention of the law.

The reality is that this probably really doesn’t affect 80% of surveyors. But it just seems backwards. Big brother is watching you and if you do what big brother wants and just barely step out of line you get a board violation, but if you just avoid what big brother wants you to do in the first place you don’t even have to deal with it.

[Ric7308]

Why? To me this is backward as a policy. If the intent is to encourage professionals to carry liability insurance, we just increased the burden of carrying the liability insurance. This should be flipped so that you increase the burden on those who do not have insurance so they have to disclose the LACK of liability insurance.

I believe you are misunderstanding or misinformed of the intent of this language when proposed. Recommend you reach out to the Chapter Director or Legislative Committee to find out. However, it is my understanding that the original proposal was for mandatory professional liability insurance by all licensees for the purposes of separating them from unlicensed individuals, with the hope to discourage unlicensed behavior.

Also on the violations, we are going to cite licenses for failure to disclose a good thing that shows they protect the public better than other licenses? So those who we are following the intentions of our laws are going to get cited for following our intentions and making minor mistakes, while those who don't follow our well meaning intentions don't even have to deal with it? Its just backwards.

Well, it's probably a good thing that "WE" don't cite licensees since your understanding of why is inaccurate and definitely not for the purpose of showing one licensee is protecting the public better than other licensees. In fact, this thinking is one of the reasons why the Board had concerns with the proposal. I believe the intention for the language which did become effective is so that the public (clients and potential clients) have a clear understanding for what they are getting themselves into by hiring a licensee which carries PL insurance or not. It is so the public can make the most informed decision they can. That is the danger in assuming that all revisions to the Act are for the benefit or detriment of the licensee.

[PLS7393]

Welcome to California 2025, and someone simply wanting to get their name on a "NEW" additional regulation.