I run a small business that provides services to larger business. I usually do my own legal work and have a good understanding of service contracts (at least mine). The other day, I got some attorney telling me that they don’t want my limitation of liability to apply to negligence (I understand that) and intentional wrong doing. Why? Doesn’t intentional wrong doing include my negligence – I usually use gross negligence, but since it’s just myself and a few trusted employees, I sometimes include “mere” as well.
In terms of damage to tangiable property, this guy wants indemnification for my intentional acts as well. Again, doesn’t my mere negligence provide enough coverage? Is he trying to get more money out of my insurance?
I remember from my old attorney (when I use to work for the man, before I became the man :)) he said that mere negligence incorporates intentional acts. Did I miss remember?
I just spent a couple minutes trying to figure out a way to provide you with useful information without a 98% likelihood that I’d be practicing law without a license in your jurisdiction. I couldn’t.
IMO, because this question involves a very specific real life situation, that only proper answer to this question is: “See a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.” I urge you not to rely on message board advice for this kind of issue. Odds are, there’ll be at least one response telling you exactly what to do. (I’d be sure of at least one unreliable response if you were asking this question 2 weeks ago.)
Given that we don’t even know what kind of work you do, the associated risks to guard against, or even what state you are in, it is impossible for anyone, even an attorney experienced in this area, to give meaningful advice. And yes, there is one thing that you seem to be mistaken about that I could arguably clear up. But that wouldn’t fully answer your question, and I’m not comfortable with giving a part answer.
I’m not trying to be unhelpful. Rather the opposite, which I hope that you can appreciate.
Hey no problem. I probably won’t give in as I don’t need the extra work. My question really had to do with the last part. I didn’t realize that the answer was so industry/state specific. I know better than to look for actual legal advice here I’m curious, what part am I mistaken about?
Without speaking to your specific situation (for which you should consult an attorney in your jurisdiction), I can say that as a general matter the law treats intentional wrongdoing different from negligence.
The broad area of the law we’re talking about is known as torts, that is civil injuries. The intentional torts (trespass, assault, battery, defamation, etc.) require that the tort-feasor (that’s the guy who commits the tort) intentionally cause injury. Negligence, in contrast, requires that the injury was caused by the absence of a required duty of care, which generally means that the injury was caused accidentally.
To give an example, if a person, call him Mr. Tort-Feasor, was throwing a ball, and slipped out of his hand and hit you, that probably would be negligence – he should have been more careful. On the other hand, if he intentionally threw the ball at you, it would be battery.
There can be quite a few legal consequenses resulting from the difference. For instance, inusrance will ususally cover your negligence, but not your intentional acts.
I’m curious, what part am I mistaken about?