Hi Debra,
I am glad to read that you are taking a reasoned approach to considering this question.
I do not know about the workmen's compensation issue. I would have thought if it is clearly a contract instead of any kind of term employment then it would not be an issue but I am sure someone else could give a more informed answer.
Requiring liability insurance is a way of transferring (the recovery cost of) risk away from your museum onto the contractor. From the museum's perspective alone it makes sense and that is why it is written into the 'boilerplate' clauses of many standard contracts. But, as boilerplate, it is there no matter whether the risk being transferred is significant, as in the case of a contractor doing hot work like welding within a collection holding or historic space, or trivial, as in the case of a workshop presenter giving a lecture or facilitating a discussion. As you have clearly realized, the cost of that ranges from being a sensible, normal part of operation costs for the hot work contractor to wasteful, even prohibitive, for many small companies or individuals providing highly specialized training.
As far as I am aware there are no legal or regulative requirements for demanding such liability insurance. Still, it is reasonable to have it written into the boilerplate of contracts to ensure it is never accidentally left out. Nonetheless, it should be easily deleted by the appropriate museum officer in cases where the risk is negligible. I suggest that the risk can be judged negligible when the risk to the museum due to the contractor's activity is comparable to the risk posed by any visitor. That could include risks of accidental physical damage, theft, fire, etc. which are usually expected to be very small on a per visitor basis.
Again, your willingness to adopt a reasoned approach is much appreciated,
Rob
------------------------------
Robert Waller PhD
President and Senior Risk Analyst
Protect Heritage Corp.
Ottawa
------------------------------