My thoughts about  E & O are pretty well known. Try to find a vendor who will cover you under their E & O for free or a flat $200 per year.

The only person who will sue you is the person you work for in most cases and if you do not have E & O you will not be sued.

Hello Steve. You are on the front line and I will defer to your experience with individuals being named.

I have read about 8  manuscript E & O contracts and I could not ever sort out what an Error or Omission definition is. One or two also use the word "Act". Now that has more meaning. I know three adjusters who have been named and their insuror said their involvment did not fall into the templete of coverage as an error or omission and would not defend.

The carrier answered and defended for the adjuster, BUT did not indemnify. I still think it is smoke .

Your last sentance hits the nail on the head and you know why this is not done more.

Steve:

What did you mean when you mentioned adjusters were included in litigation "to defeat diversity of citizenship". Also, does the carrier take over this litigation, or do the vendors and / or the adjusters take over their own respective litigation? I am aware of cases where a vendor and or adjuster is named, but the vendor / adjuster just turns the case over to the carrier and the carrier takes care of all aspects of the litigation. I'd like to have a better handle on this litigation issue. Though I use an LLC for my business, more than few vendors require that the adjusters be employees. Do you think that (being an employee) reduces the risk for the adjuster? I know many people keep assets in their wife's name, and then they just say "sue me", kind of like Ray's comments. The E&O insurance invites the litigation whereas having no assets actually reduces it. Thoughts?