Owners and developers involved in construction projects must deal with the inherent risks involved with such projects. Their options are typically limited to avoiding (not move forward with the project), assuming (accept the risk and hoping for the best), controlling/mitigating, or transferring the risk. This article addresses the most common risk transfer options.
The simplest method of risk transfer, whereby the owner is indemnified by the General Contractor (GC) under contract and typically the GC is required to provide Additional Insured (AI) status to the owner under the GC’s program.
A limited type of liability insurance purchased by the GC on behalf of the owner. In addition to contractual risk transfer and AI status (although sometimes an OCP is used in lieu of AI status), an OCP provides the owner with their own dedicated policy with its own limits.
Full General Liability (GL) coverage purchased in the name of the owner only, providing the owner full GL coverage (e.g. premises & operations, contractual, products & completed operations and, if desired, extended completed operations, should the owner have the intent of selling the property). Coverage is limited to the designated project with dedicated limits. The coverage is underwritten by the insurance carrier largely based on the type of project and venue, the quality of the GC involved and the strength of the contract with the GC (e.g. indemnification agreement and insurance requirements, including limits). It is much more expensive than an OCP, but much less expensive than a project-specific GL policy covering both the owner and the GC.
Full GL coverage purchased in the name of both the owner and the GC, providing them full GL coverage (e.g. premises & operations, contractual, products & completed operations and, if desired, extended completed operations). Coverage is limited to the designated project with dedicated limits. The coverage is underwritten by the insurance carrier largely based on the type of project and venue, the quality of the GC involved and the strength of the GC’s sub-contract agreement (e.g. indemnification agreement and required insurance). It is much more expensive than an OCP and an owner’s interest only GL, but less expensive than an OCIP/Wrap project-specific GL policy covering all enrolled contractors on a project.
A comprehensive GL project-specific program purchased by the owner and intended to cover both the owner and all contractors (i.e. enrolled contractors) involved in the construction project. These programs provide full GL coverage (premises & operations, contractual, products & completed operations and, if desired, extended completed operations). Coverage is limited to the designated project with dedicated limits. The coverage is underwritten by the insurance carrier largely based on the type of project, venue and the quality of the GC involved.
Traditionally, wrap programs had been utilized for only the largest and most complex of construction projects. However, owners and contractors have increasingly come to appreciate their advantages for smaller projects. As recently as 2012, it was not uncommon to hear insurance professionals indicating that the minimum project size for a wrap was $100M in hard costs. These old rules of thumb no longer apply, at least in regard to monoline GL wraps. These GL-only wraps have become increasingly popular, even for projects as small as $10M - $15M in hard costs. In fact, many carriers have stepped up to offer competitive programs with GL minimum premiums starting under $100,000.
Another variation of a wrap program is a “rolling wrap,” which is similar to a GL wrap but is written to cover multiple projects that “roll” into the program as they come online. To ensure a successful “rolling wrap,” the types of projects should be homogenous and the GC and venue involved should be consistent. A major issue with this type of wrap program is that, unless limits reinstate on a per-project basis, each project is exposed to limit erosion from losses unrelated to the project in question.
OCIP’s are complex programs that require experienced agents and brokers. The advantages and drawbacks detailed above only scratch the surface of issues to be addressed, which may include SIR allocation, offsite coverage concerns and bid-process insurance cost handling (e.g. gross or net) considerations. Nevertheless, it is important to note that OCIP’s are increasingly the most cost-effective method for insuring construction projects in the current environment.
This article has only touched upon the basics of these types of risk transfer options. Contact your AmWINS casualty broker for further details and a discussion of the intricacies involved.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
This article was written by Gary Grindle, a member of AmWINS’ national construction practice.
Legal Disclaimer. Views expressed here do not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein is for general guidance of matter only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Discussion of insurance policy language is descriptive only. Every policy has different policy language. Coverage afforded under any insurance policy issued is subject to individual policy terms and conditions. Please refer to your policy for the actual language.
(c) 2017 AmWINS Group, Inc.
Construction contract negotiations, which determine the kind and amount of insurance required for a construction project, can be time-consuming, complicated and frustrating. Project owners require contractors on a project to name the project owner as an additional insured on the contractor’s casualty insurance program. It's important that both project owners and contractors understand the coverage provided by these additional insured endorsements. This article discusses four common ISO additional insured endorsements related to commercial general liability policies purchased by contractors, including their limitations, conditions and exclusions.
The Thomas Fire, the largest fire in California's history, subsequently led to a mudslide on January 9, 2018, which caused a massive amount of damage in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. The California Insurance Commissioner has issued a formal notice reminding carriers to pay for damage, citing the "efficient proximate cause doctrine." This article takes a closer look at the doctrine and how it has been challenged in court over the years.
Ordinance or Law insurance coverage provides limited protection for costs associated with repairing, rebuilding, or constructing a structure when physical damage to the structure by a covered cause of loss triggers an ordinance or law. Compliance with ordinances and laws after a loss can add 50% or more to the cost of a claim. This article will help you educate your insureds on exclusions and limitations and help them take a proactive approach to their insurance program.
In 2017, the issue of sexual harassment – especially in the workplace – gained greater awareness as accusations of harassment by high-profile individuals were constantly in the news. In many cases, sexual harassment lawsuits seriously impacted businesses and their respective insurers. Employment Practices Liability Insurance not only provides protection against employee lawsuits, but can also help your clients mitigate their sexual harassment risks.
Due to the Doctrine of Negligent Entrustment, the consequences of allowing an employee with a poor driving record to operate any motor vehicle for work purposes extend beyond a possible traffic violation or accident. These seven tips will help you to proactively manage your drivers and maintain your CDL files as part of your fleet safety program.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration mandate which requires nearly all U.S. truck operators to use electronic logging devices (ELDs) to track duty status has been upheld in court and will take effect December 16, 2017. The mandate will impact not just the trucking industry, but the trucking insurance sector as well.