> 1) it does not improve the homeowners coverage.
>Claim comes from my agent. Personnaly I'm indifferent, I know I'm covered.

While proof or notification of current insurance may be a trust/validation issue, being a "named insured" is completely different. The homeowner is not normally covered by the insurance of the geo installer. So to the extent that the homeowner may be at fault (eg, slippery floors), they are exposed unless they have other insurance to cover it (they probably do).

Of course any contractor can buy the cheapest insurance possible that has so many fine print disclaimers that it is worthless; but only a lawyer and lots of time would make this completely clear.

In my opinion, if an installer shows me current insurance coverage without asking, then I am willing to trust him not to cancel it. Asking to be a "named insured" would depend on my other coverage. A portfolio book with pictures of installs, references, certifications and licenses, insurance policy, insurance agent phone #, warranty policy, parts and labor breakdown, performance validation steps, etc would be a big plus if I selected an installer. Having to ask for these things and encountering resistance would be a big negative. These are $20K installs, not $200 garage door repairs.

Thanks jonr. I like your concise phrase "trust/validation". It reminded me of Ronald Reagan's "Trust, but verify". I'm in that camp and I know I won't get scr'wed.

Your cost example makes sense. But other potential damage should be considered too. As an example, while our tree removal only cost $400, there was a possibility that the tree could have come down on the house.

Someone without insurance may file for bankruptcy protection should an incident happen, rather than be on the hook for it. With insurance, it may be paid.

Jonr it sounds like you are suggesting that being a certificate holder or named insured would not be routine in your opinion, yes?
I don't think anyone has disputed that insurance information should be readily available.

Geome,
I have provided you with your own thread to continue your quest for the certificate holy grail.

To others, I am still looking for information that suggests I am unreasonable in my practice. I will take note, if it comes from a credible source.

Good Luck,
Joe

Deleted to make peace. 

This has sure gotten lively.  We are all adults here and wear big boy clothes.  The discussion about the "requirement" for a certificate should most certainly be hashed out by local gvt. or trade associations.  The finer point that is being missed here is that all of this is a choice.  It is a choice for a customer to select a contractor, and it is a choice for a contractor to move forward with the job.  If any party to that arrangement feels the least bit uncertain about anything.  The choice or decision can be made to not go forward together.
  As a homeowner if you reqire something that the contractor does not provide, move on, it's a choice.  If other businesses require things of me that I find disagreable I move on, it is a choice.  If you go to a restraunt and want seafood and they only have steak, move on, it is a choice.
Can we all have a group hug now?

I'm ok hugging if Joe is? That is, as long as we don't have to kiss.

I'll even delete my last post now as an olive branch.

Thanks Eric for the post and suggestion. 

My experience over the last 20 years is that homeowners want to know you have insurance, its rarely asked for as and when it is I have a copy of the policy binder in a sales presentation binder. When your talking about builders and GC's its their insurance and bonding co that requires it and is handled between the two. Same with local jurisdictions...Eric