a minute or republic not sure thank you seven years ago when i first began practicing law in pittsburgh i was asked to draft i sixty referring only to the traditional employer employee relationship is a reasonable one well not the better transportation well i think it is actually the more reasonable one and multiple judges on multiple from california and oregon have agreed the only question becomes this interpretation of employment is referring to that work that and bass the same rou prospective holders respect and i think that unlike most legal terms the difference between an independent contractor and employment is really well understood by the average person they whether it's carpenter who wants to make sure that he is paid on a independent contractor basis with a ten ninety nine at the end of the year or the employee who gets paid the deputy what people negotiate their wages when the hire as the time and i think the average person and certainly the average policyholder understands that when he asks a carpenter to come in the same time or to fix did not reach reach the employment the employer employee relationship with decided before this incident ever arose in two thousand and ten or so when the insurance company in the face of three decisions fund insurance company it is the identical language to the employment practices exclusion in the economic policy here or the exclusion that applies to that comprehensive general  discipline you're right defining the term interact with you by talking about him and excluded employment practices and that the reasonable interpretation of that has that does not appl my addition to my home and bar harbor so i think independent contractors are rarely disciplined they might be critiqued i think they already think the market that makes no sense  already read the sun and the only employment related practice that would clearly a right to an independent contractor among those itemized is slander but it is not enough that interpretation a reasonable one not your interpretation but once it is reasonable interpretation the language is ambiguous and maine law mandates that the insurance company which drafted that policy must have the exclusion construed against that construction could have been uprooted by simply defining that this employment practice services organization for the iso policy they make a point to say that this applies whether you're sued us an employee or in some other capacity which would apply to a case where you s he slammed an independent contractor well but well the second employment practices exclusion talks about application for employment and i've never seen an ad for an independent contractor plumbing inspector for one year period of time he was employed on to engage in the services which were mandated by the statute to be performed by a plumbing inspector if you look at the definition of the word employ as did the magistrate below and as he actually there is in the brief that i have submitted show when you employ someone you engage them to do something you retained them to do something employment is the relationship between the employer on the honor the first is that i agree there is a distinct difference between the status of an individual who is an independent contractor and the status of individual who is an employee eat those different statuses however for such things as workers compensation  it's not like arius liability should be applied to the person on whose that the employee is working but in so far as the relationship between the two is concerned the independent contractor in the person whom placed him the employee and the person whom place him well stay with me for a minute fine or an assessment from the discipline and evaluation something which he says is lacking in this case he is under the supervision and control of the town manager the town manager looks at what he does this is imposed by statu holdings there was any warning to the insurer in this case that in a situation where the funding inspector claims that his property interest in his position his property interest in that position which was affected or violated by what the se be i do not i don't think it's necessary but the point is that the appellant in this case continually argues that i have nothing but an independent contractor actually i respectfully submit that's incorrect that's not true he has you know i believe that what happened was i objected to some statements on the material statement of facts that the appellant put him the magistrate overbuild my objection on the grounds that the basis of my objection did not apply to keep them out however the magistrate said it makes no difference whether or not i treat them as an independent contractor the employment related practices exclusion still applies and so you also have  affected him in its professional reputation mentions that the employment practices in dorset which was not a clickable in that case explicitly limited itself to employees and not independent contractors and that too was an i and then tries to sell an employment practices exclusion one would suggest that the interest met that i also puts out should near the exclusion i want to point out as well that the the vendor who stocks well a school fruit machine soda machine is providing both services and labor and ten he would be covered by their argument because he could only distinguish the vendor by saying they provide a good snot services but in fact most vendors to most towns provide goods and services and the fulfilling a public duty