Yeah, idiot guy. They offered me a $1 million liability just for the market stand for about $300 per year. They did not offer product liability and he should have just said so off the bat. then he was just going to sign me up before he gave me the details. I asked what it covered for $300 and that was when I found out it was just the stand. So $25 per month year round when I only sell from mid May to mid October and it just covered accidents at market! I don't make enough to use that. He did give me the number of a guy who is an independent insurance man that works with various policies. I am going to call him now.

The structure is not hard to design but is just a little modern (boxes with a couple overhangs). The "limitation of Liability" line on the contract reads: "To the maximum extend permitted by law, the Client agrees to limit (company)'s liability for the Client's damages to the sum of $50,000 or (company)'s fee, whichever is greater. THis limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of the action or legal theory pled or asserted." Macy, when you said "I've not run into that before." What exactly does that mean? Did you mean you've never ran into any structural problems? Thanks.

I've read this thread a number of times now and would like to re open the discussion in lieu of the last couple of remarks. Yes trees can cause damage to homes, so does UV radiation, some insects, and also wild fires, storms, floods, etc...The point is here that the perceived damage from trees far exceeds the actual damages. In fact the odds of a tree killing a member of the public is about 1:20,000,000 or less than being killed by lightning strikes. Yet where do we consider the damages to the community in the loss of large maturing canopy trees that provide a net benefit in hard dollars to communities through all the services trees provide for free. Another point about small trees in small lots. Trees with canopies that mature under thirty feet take up space in the same areas that we need for human activity. In contrast a tree with a mature height of seventy feet can easily be pruned to allow for canopy coverage above a structure while still allowing for people to have branches clear of their structures and giving them room to walk and play underneath. Point three: Many of these tree "problems" have an ultimate people cause. Compacted soils causing root growth in the upper portions of the soils, poor sidewalk or patio designs that actually create great spaces for tree roots to grow just below the concrete due to condensation, over fertilizing of lawns that cause fast growth and can lead to premature shedding of tree parts, over pruning or bad pruning which can lead to whole or partial tree failures, removal of neighboring trees that help protect other trees, and the list can go on and on... Yes trees can sometimes cause some problems for people, but in the end we need them for quality of life. Tree law at this point is just beginning to recognize the longevity of trees, as opposed to the short occupancy of most homeowners. The laws are beginning to take into account that trees are not static things, but change from year to year. We still have a long way to go on this one, but I fear that litigation and regulation is going to create an environment where no tree reaches maturity before it is deemed a "hazard" and removed only to be replaced with a much smaller tree producing less quality of life for our community.

logic wrote: "dreamgarden, great article....brings a whole new meaning to "what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive".... And there you have it in a nutshell. However, I can see why it is more comforting for all too many to simply blame the lowly homebuyer....as one can then continue to remain in denial that of the fact that in essence, our entire finance system is one HUGE scam. Thanks. The more I read about the subprime mess, the more I realize what a "shell game" the bigger interests are playing with everyone's money. Even UK chancellor Alistair Darling has joined growing calls for a probe into the role that credit agencies have played in the world financial crisis. Darling censures rating agencies news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6995699.stm Its too bad the U.S. didn't follow Canada's example for insuring mortgages. "All high-ratio mortgages in Canada Ñ those with less than 20 per cent down Ñ must be secured by mortgage insurance, through, for example, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In addition, Canadian financial institutions do not finance more than 100 per cent of a home's purchase price, and that value must be verified with a separate appraisal." marys1000 wrote: "Is there going to be a run on banks? Are banks going to fail? All my mother's money is in one bank." If you have all of your money in ONE bank, that could be a problem. I don't know if there is going to be a run on banks in the U.S. or not, but DH and I are NOT waiting to find out. We have already moved some of our investments into T-bills and CD's. The last time we talked to our banker, he told us we didn't have any sub-prime investments and tried to convince us to keep everything in the market. When I asked him to tell us which part of our portfolio was FDIC insured (or if he would be willing to support us if the market drops), he was silent. Never suggested T-bills or CD's either. I guess he is only interested in our "welfare" as long as he (and his employer) stand to gain. Now I understand why the Russians stuffed money under their mattresses after their banks failed so many times. Time-The Last Sacrifice- Dec. 22, 1947 The Soviets had spiraled into economic trouble similar in some ways to capitalist inflationary difficulties. The ruble, officially valued at 20 U.S. cents, was worth no more than three in actual buying power. Illegal speculation by bureaucrats, collective-farm bosses, store and factory managers and others had become a lively menace to state planning. Peasants, and some city dwellers, had also accumulated hoards of rubles largely because too few of the things they needed, or wanted to buy, were available. Never knowing when deposits might be frozen, they distrusted banks, kept their hoarded money at home. Rationing controls could not be lifted until this money was destroyed, and its destruction was Zhdanov's principal aim.