Is it within the bounds of the law for a contractor’s insurance provider to require that the contractor not pay sub-contractors more than a certain % of their own earnings?

Is this a common practice? This is a very large problem for a couple managing some properties and intending to sub-contract most of the substantial workload.

Asked on March 18, 2015 under Insurance Law, New Hampshire


SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 5 years ago | Contributor

It is completely within the bounds of the law: an insurance company or provider may put any restrictions into its policy that it wants, and if someone doesn't like those restrictions, they don't have to buy insurance from that company.Remember: no one is obligated to sell anyone else insurance, and will only sell it if the terms and conditions make sense for them.

The restriction you describe is intended to make sure that contractor keeps enough of the money to remain solvent, and it's not that uncommon a restriction, but the contractor can look for a different provider if that restriction doesn't work for the contractor.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.