Self build insurance

kkelliher

Isn't there some difference between Domestic and Nominated Subcontractors in that the "Builder's" insurance will only cover Domestic Subcontractors but you would need your own PL / EL Insurance to cover Nominated subcontractors

No, contractually no difference from an insurance perspective as the main contractor pays both

Frank Black

Paudi04 wrote: »

Thanks for answers ill have to check contractors insurance to see if it covers everything and hopefully it will be enough for the bank!

Without labouring the point - do check that not only is everything covered, but that it's covered from theft/criminal damage.

Our broker told us that it was not possible to get a policy to cover against this risk during the Construction phase - they may have been talking bollox.

kkelliher

black francis wrote: »

Without labouring the point - do check that not only is everything covered, but that it's covered from theft/criminal damage.

Our broker told us that it was not possible to get a policy to cover against this risk during the Construction phase - they may have been talking bollox.

Again if a main contractor (not self build) is appointed on a new build (not an extension or refurb) under standard form of contract then the MC is responsible for security of the site within his posession until practical completion

Frank Black

kkelliher wrote: »

Again if a main contractor (not self build) is appointed on a new build (not an extension or refurb) under standard form of contract then the MC is responsible for security of the site within his posession until practical completion

Being responsible for something and being insured against a specific risk are different. The Op should seek clarity either from his own insurance provider or from the builder (ideally in writing) as to what is covered in the instance of theft/criminal damage.

A dispute with the builder half way through a house build as to what is and isn't covered would not be an ideal position for an owner to find themselves in.

archtech

black francis wrote: »

A dispute with the builder half way through a house build as to what is and isn't covered would not be an ideal position for an owner to find themselves in.

And that's why a client should always request a copy of the building contractors policy and have it reviewed before allowing the building contractor start.

Frank Black

archtech wrote: »

And that's why a client should always request a copy of the building contractors policy and have it reviewed before allowing the building contractor start.

Which is what I'm suggesting -as opposed to just assuming it's going to be covered under the standard form of contract.

kkelliher

black francis wrote: »

Being responsible for something and being insured against a specific risk are different. The Op should seek clarity either from his own insurance provider or from the builder (ideally in writing) as to what is covered in the instance of theft/criminal damage.

A dispute with the builder half way through a house build as to what is and isn't covered would not be an ideal position for an owner to find themselves in.

And there i was thinking that this was the reason we sign contracts with builders!!!

Frank Black

kkelliher wrote: »

And there i was thinking that this was the reason we sign contracts with builders!!!

I work in Civil Engineering and administer contracts every day as an Employer's Representative.
It's rare that a contract is executed without a dispute arising between an Employer and Contractor as to what Works are covered under the Contract and what are additional items.

While most claims of this nature can be settled eventually by agreement, others require Conciliation and possibly Arbitration proceedings.

My point is that a "signed contract" doesn't protect a Client from contractual disputes. A 'signed contract' is open to interpretation.

My suggestion that the OP seek clarity from the builder in writing prior to works starting on what is and isn't covered in terms of criminal damage would go someway to reducing the chances of a later dispute arising in relation to this.

You seem to be suggesting that the OP doesn't need to because he'll have a 'signed contract'.


I know which course of action I'd be taking if it was me.

kkelliher

black francis wrote: »

I work in Civil Engineering and administer contracts every day as an Employer's Representative.
It's rare that a contract is executed without a dispute arising between an Employer and Contractor as to what Works are covered under the Contract and what are additional items.

While most claims of this nature can be settled eventually by agreement, others require Conciliation and possibly Arbitration proceedings.

My point is that a "signed contract" doesn't protect a Client from contractual disputes. A 'signed contract' is open to interpretation.

My suggestion that the OP seek clarity from the builder in writing prior to works starting on what is and isn't covered in terms of criminal damage would go someway to reducing the chances of a later dispute arising in relation to this.

You seem to be suggesting that the OP doesn't need to because he'll have a 'signed contract'.


I know which course of action I'd be taking if it was me.

In 15 years if working in contract administration in both the building industry and in civil engineering contracts I have never had insurance cover raised as an issue. I am also unaware of any court cases in respect to this issue (given arbitrations and conciliations are generally unpublished).

The requirements of insurance under the standard form of building contract (given the OP is relating the issue to a building contract and not a civil engineering contract (as you will appreciate, a massive difference) ) is probably the most detailed and clear part of the contract. I find little open to interpertation in respect to this element of the contract.

It is fair to accept that the client should check the vailidity of the contractors cover but the requirements and responsibilites are clear.

lollymob

Quick question, do you have to include the garage in the square footage you give the insurance co?

Frank Black

kkelliher wrote: »

In 15 years if working in contract administration in both the building industry and in civil engineering contracts I have never had insurance cover raised as an issue. I am also unaware of any court cases in respect to this issue (given arbitrations and conciliations are generally unpublished).

The requirements of insurance under the standard form of building contract (given the OP is relating the issue to a building contract and not a civil engineering contract (as you will appreciate, a massive difference) ) is probably the most detailed and clear part of the contract. I find little open to interpertation in respect to this element of the contract.

It is fair to accept that the client should check the vailidity of the contractors cover but the requirements and responsibilites are clear.

Is there any chance you could post the relevant clauses?
The contract doesn't seem to be available online.
I don't doubt you - just curious.
Even if we accept that what you say is true, it costs nothing to do as I suggest and get confirmation in writing that criminal damage and theft from the property are covered by the builder's insurance.
As someone who ended up paying a considerable sum to the builder and other tradespeople to repair such damage, I'm simply advising the OP to check, to avoid my mistake.