+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Do U need insurance (/showthread.php?tid=5580)
Do U need insurance - Marc Berger - 21st March 2015
I have a whole heap of archives which have spent Christmas with me for the past ten years and I wondered where I could get some insurance for them before the public servants pay me to take them off my hands. I presume that it might be quite specialist insurance but are most country museums insured? If they are can I build up a no claims discount and what kind of excess should I be looking at?
Do U need insurance - GnomeKing - 21st March 2015
Marc Berger Wrote:I have a whole heap of archives which have spent Christmas with me for the past ten years and I wondered where I could get some insurance for them before the public servants pay me to take them off my hands. I presume that it might be quite specialist insurance but are most country museums insured? If they are can I build up a no claims discount and what kind of excess should I be looking at?
ask these people what they cover;
http://www.towergateinsurance.co.uk/
(am guessing that the 'no claims bonus' is in jest
Do U need insurance - Marc Berger - 23rd March 2015
Thanks Gnome Isn't "No claims" how insurance works..
This document seems to have used the word archaeological object in it http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/Non_National_GIS_guidelines_v1.pdf
Blue sky I know but would it be relevance when lending my archive to the local storage dump that an agreed specified value for insurance purposes was generated which included the production costs at least? Might I have been remiss if not irresponsible in the past especially to my clients in not insisting that the archive was deposited with an adequately insured institution and that the archive was specifically insured. I have seen a lot of wsi which insist that the archaeologist has insurance mostly public, the cost of which obviously we pass onto the polluter. Might we have been complicit in not insisting on insurance for the archive because we were worried that the costs would be levied at the developer and that the developer might not then want to pass any ownership to the museums? (Obviously this does not apply in Scotland where the Crown owns everything and the landowners don't get a choice)