This Is Why You Need To Be Legal And Insured
Decorating By costumeczar Updated 15 May 2011 , 11:02pm by indydebi
hehehehe - I was just going off to get a link to THAT story - when I realised it was the same!!
Scary.. But a good reality check. Could she have been charged if she didn't actually sell the food?
Scary.. But a good reality check. Could she have been charged if she didn't actually sell the food?
I wouldn't think so ... She would have "gained" nothing financially by making a free love offering of the food.
But if her neighbors did sue her, her homeowner's probably would have covered her:
http://www.insure.com/articles/homeinsurancefaq/home-insurance-dinner-guests-food-poisoning-does-insurance-cover-me.html
http://www.insurancehotline.com/eat-drink-and-be-wary
http://insurancevaluetips.com/foodpoisoning
Scary.. But a good reality check. Could she have been charged if she didn't actually sell the food?
Every state's law is different. While it is unlikely that she would be fined if she didn't charge for the food, she has certainly exposed herself to a possible negligence action. Even if the case was dismissed or settled under a homeowner's policy, certainly it would be a nightmare to go through.
I think it's interesting you posted this about the same time I'm looking into getting insured! If this isn't a kick in the pants to do it, I don't know what is! 
Normal Public Liability Insurance that is included in Australian homeowners building insurance would NOT have covered her.
You need a separate PRODUCTS LIABILITY insurance for that here
AND the point that should be emphasised (only pertaining to Australia of course) is that IF it can be determined that you did not follow the guidelines set down by Food Standards Australia & New Zealand then they would NOT pay out on your claim.
Normal Public Liability Insurance that is included in Australian homeowners building insurance would NOT have covered her.
You need a separate PRODUCTS LIABILITY insurance for that here
AND the point that should be emphasised (only pertaining to Australia of course) is that IF it can be determined that you did not follow the guidelines set down by Food Standards Australia & New Zealand then they would NOT pay out on your claim.
Good point...Like when the auto insurers find out that you were delivering cakes for a business and your car wasn't insured for business use when you got into an accident, you probably won't be covered under your auto policy.
Good point...Like when the auto insurers find out that you were delivering cakes for a business and your car wasn't insured for business use when you got into an accident, you probably won't be covered under your auto policy.
Amen!! 
As I've often said on here, AFTER you're in the wreck and someone is suing you for $100,000 .... that is NOT that time to find out that your personal auto insurance carrier is going to say, "Oh, you were using the car for a business use? Sorry! No can do!"
The initial article is poorly written.
Firstly, mayonnaise is, by its very nature as a classic emulsion sauce, an uncooked food. It is also made with raw whole egg. If there is no egg, you do not have mayonnaise. This basic premise aside, the mayo was just the likely protagonist in the story.
The issue here is actually about code violation (which was discovered as a result of the food poisoning). In New South Wales when you work with food that you are going to sell then you must work from a commercially set up kitchen and if you are going to do that then you must provide a formal notification so that your kitchen can be passed as being commercially viable. Irrespective of whether she was running a business or not (registered or unregistered), she still would've been fined.
That and making sure you have a good lawyer when you appear in Court. I'm surprised the club wasn't fined as is usually the case with commercial association of an unregistered food business.
Either way, it's got nothing to do with insurance.
Either way, it's got nothing to do with insurance.
Not sure how it works in Australia, but in the US liability insurance would typically cover the cost of your legal defense and any judgments against you for an incident like this, but only if you operate legally. The article illustrates that spending a few hundred a year on liability coverage could save you tens of thousands of dollars if something goes wrong.
The person writing the article has misunderstood the issue at hand. Code violation voids the insurance policy. So the point of having insurance is moot.
The person concerned could've been insured to the eyeballs but she still would've been convicted. The case is about legislative compliance. 
Either way, it's got nothing to do with insurance.
Not sure how it works in Australia, but in the US liability insurance would typically cover the cost of your legal defense and any judgments against you for an incident like this, but only if you operate legally. The article illustrates that spending a few hundred a year on liability coverage could save you tens of thousands of dollars if something goes wrong.
I used to work in insurance and jason_Kraft is exacly right!!!!
Wow..That sucks for the people who got sick...This happened at work one year when a lady made the chili for our staff BBQ...I guess the meat was bad and several (actually more like 30-40 people) got severe diarrhea and such.Now she didn't get paid for making it but we all sure got sick..Funny though..It was the best darn chili I had in a long time too....
The person writing the article has misunderstood the issue at hand. Code violation voids the insurance policy. So the point of having insurance is moot.
The person concerned could've been insured to the eyeballs but she still would've been convicted. The case is about legislative compliance.
Hence the title of this thread indicating that you need to be both legal AND insured.
In the US, the bigger issue would be guests suing the caterer, the resulting judgment could potentially be much larger than any fine levied by the govt. That's where liability insurance comes into play.
Hence the title of this thread indicating that you need to be both legal AND insured.
In the US, the bigger issue would be guests suing the caterer, the resulting judgment could potentially be much larger than any fine levied by the govt. That's where liability insurance comes into play.
You can't be properly insured if you're not legal.
Which is why the insurance issue is irrelevant.
And that the issue remains one regarding code violation.
So in Australia, are people allowed to sue the food provider if they get sick from the food? (For example, for compensatory damages from medical bills and loss of time from work.)
Normal Public Liability Insurance that is included in Australian homeowners building insurance would NOT have covered her.
You need a separate PRODUCTS LIABILITY insurance for that here
AND the point that should be emphasised (only pertaining to Australia of course) is that IF it can be determined that you did not follow the guidelines set down by Food Standards Australia & New Zealand then they would NOT pay out on your claim.
Good point...Like when the auto insurers find out that you were delivering cakes for a business and your car wasn't insured for business use when you got into an accident, you probably won't be covered under your auto policy.
Wow, I didn't know that about auto insurance! I learned something new today!
raw egg may filling! I'll add that to the menu. blech :0
Mayo is used in cake decorating. Fact is, you can't have mayonnaise any other way other than 'raw'. LOL!
So in Australia, are people allowed to sue the food provider if they get sick from the food? (For example, for compensatory damages from medical bills and loss of time from work.)
Well yes of course. After all, this is why you have public liability insurance. However, in the absence of an insurable position it's another thing whether such an action will have any merit at law.
Jason, basically the premise of underwriting insurance both here and in the US is the same. That is, you pay a premium to have someone with money to pay for your losses on a specified thing (eg. item/action) should they occur against you or someone else as a result of the action or thing owned by you. In return, the onus is on you, the insured, to disclose any information that may increase or make that risk uninsurable.
For example, if you told the insurance company that you are running an unregistered business they would tell you to go register it before they could lawfully agree to insure you (here they ask for a certificate to prove this as well as the certification status of your kitchen - this is usually done by the local Council) If you do not tell them then this voids your policy and renders your position untenable as you have failed to meet legislative standards required for said insurance.
So, if you are running a business illegally and you poison someone with the food you make then your illegal status negates your insurable position. So essentially you're not covered because you are running an illegal business so, really, it doesn't matter whether you have insurance or not. If you are running a legal business and you poison someone then you are covered and the insurance company steps in at this point and the whole insurance process rolls out. Do you see the difference here?
With this case in particular, the article only covers the Court action undertaken by the NSW Food Authority with regards to the woman's legal status as a commercial food provider. The article doesn't cover any information regarding any potential civil action that may or may not have been undertaken by the people who were poisoned which may well be in process or may have concluded since the case is about two years old now.
Phew! Righto, I'm off to bake a cake now
With this case in particular, the article only covers the Court action undertaken by the NSW Food Authority with regards to the woman's legal status as a commercial food provider. The article doesn't cover any information regarding any potential civil action that may or may not have been undertaken by the people who were poisoned which may well be in process or may have concluded since the case is about two years old now.
I believe the intent of this thread was to use the article for illustrative purposes. You're correct that the article does not specifically mention civil action taken against this person by the guests, but you can't deny that she put herself at risk for said liability because she had neither insurance coverage nor a legal business, and it's not difficult to imagine that civil action was forthcoming soon after the incident in question.
The moral of the story is that it's important to have protection from liability AND to be compliant with local/state/federal laws.
Mayo is used in cake decorating. Fact is, you can't have mayonnaise any other way other than 'raw'.
I've seen recipes for both frosting and cake that contain mayo. In the frosting recipes the mayo would be considered "raw", but the mayo in the cake recipes would be heated up enough to kill salmonella.
There are good arguments on all sides of this issue, but if i can interject one more thought.......
legal, illegal, insured or not ..... the underlying problem is unsafe food practices. I think those who operate under the radar are less likely to take the food safety course that (in my state) are required for any food handlers.
While I felt I knew "the rules" and practiced good health and safety standards before, I was amazed at how much I learned after taking the food safety course. Things like why we wear aprons (it's not to protect our clothes) and how home refrigerators are not designed for food safety (is your egg shelf on the top row? bad. very bad.)
So those who just hang up a shingle in their front yard without going thru the legalities are more likely (and I'm not saying all do ... just saying "are more likely") to have a food safety issue than someone who goes thru the legalities and is required to learn food safety.
I think we can push aside the legal/illegal, insured/not-insured arguments aside because the underlying issue is food safety knowledge .... which is usually lacking in a cake or food civilian .... and by 'civilian', I mean someone who thinks they are "clean" but have not taken the proper class to education themselves on what 'real' clean is.
Just food for thought. (no pun intended! )
FOOD SAFETY is the only way to prevent all of this. so everyone needs to be food safety certified, or at least take a course in food safety before making food for large groups of people. there is a big difference in "being clean" and "serving safe food".
This concerns me because I put 1/4 cup of Mayo in every cake I bake! It makes for an incredibly moist cake. But...since I don't have control over the receivers of these cakes, they may leave them out for a couple of days. I guess I'm through with that practice!
Quote by @%username% on %date%
%body%