|
(Published by Idaho Business Review, March 21, 2005)
Construction is a high risk activity with frequent personal injuries
and property losses or damage arising out of construction work.
In construction contracts, the owner normally requires the general
contractor to show proof of various types of insurance, including
a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy, and
for a general contractor to require its subcontractors to carry
a CGL policy to protect against liability for personal injury
and property damage.
Owners and general contractors typically require
a general contractor or subcontractor to make the owner or general
contractor an “additional insured” on the general
contractor’s or subcontractor’s CGL policy. Typically,
the owner or general contractor will require proof that it has,
in fact, been added as an additional insured. The purpose of an
“additional insured” endorsement is to require the
general contractor’s or subcontractor’s insurance
company to defend claims brought against the “additional
insured” when the claims are based upon the negligent or
wrongful conduct of the general contractor or subcontractor. In
many instances, the general contractor or subcontractor will simply
send to the owner or general contractor a certificate from its
carrier showing the owner or general contractor as an additional
insured on its CGL policy. This is done with little thought to
the insurance requirements in the contract. Often the parties
do not send or receive the endorsements from the insurance carrier
which provide the terms of the actual coverage. Failing to closely
examine the insurance requirements in the contract and getting
the correct coverage could be disastrous to either the general
contractor or the subcontractor.
An issue currently causing problems arises in connection
with risks commonly called “completed operations,”
and a general contractor’s or subcontractor’s inability
to purchase a coverage making the owner or general contractor
an additional insured for completed operations. In the context
of construction, “completed operations” is the risk
that general contractors (and subcontractors) have for liability
arising out of finished projects. From the insurance company’s
standpoint, it is an unusual risk because it relates not to the
general contractor’s current activities, but past activities.
Liability may arise many years after a project is completed for
personal injury or property damage, including damage or loss of
the project itself. A common issue is an electrical or mechanical
system failure causing damage or injury alleged to be due to faulty
construction. Insurance coverage may exist under current policies
even though the construction was completed many years earlier.
While the risks are unusual, most contractors’ CGL policies
cover the contractor’s “completed operations.”
The effect of adding the owner or general contractor
as an additional insured for completed operations is to make the
contractor’s insurance company liable for defending claims
against the owner based on the negligent or wrongful conduct of
the contractor relating to completed operations. The insurer would
like claims against the owner after completion, regardless of
cause, defended at the expense of the owner’s insurance
carrier rather than the contractor’s.
The problem from a general contractor’s or
subcontractor’s standpoint is that it may not be able to
procure an Additional Insured Endorsement for Completed Operations
(ISO Form 20 37) even if required in the construction contract,
and the current Additional Insured Endorsement (ISO Form 20 10)
excludes completed operations. Insurance underwriters locally
and nationally are increasingly hesitant or will not issue the
Additional Insured Endorsement for Completed Operations because
of the increased risks. Therefore, if a general contractor or
subcontractor enters into a contract obligating itself to make
the owner or general contractor an additional insured for completed
operations, but cannot get the insurance and there is an otherwise
covered loss, the general contractor or subcontractor may be contractually
obligated to personally pay for the owner’s or general contractor’s
legal expenses and any damages suffered. It is not difficult to
envision a situation where a construction defect which does not
surface until after the project is completed causes hundreds of
thousands of dollars in damages to the owner, and would be a covered
loss under an additional insured completed operations endorsement.
Such liability could ruin an otherwise profitable general contractor
or subcontractor.
While a contractor cannot force insurance underwriters
to sell the various insurance endorsements required by the owner
or general contractor of a project, a contractor can take some
steps to mitigate risk. First, a contractor should not blindly
enter into a construction contract without carefully considering
the insurance coverages required. A contractor should understand
the contract’s insurance requirements. Second, the contractor
should submit the proposed contract to its insurance broker who
can provide the appropriate coverages or advise that the coverages
required under the contract are not available. Third, if the coverages
required by the contract are not available (as may be the case
with the additional insured endorsement for completed operations),
the general contractor or subcontractor should renegotiate the
contract with the owner or general contractor to eliminate the
problematic insurance provision or understand the potential risk
if it elects to proceed without coverage.
Jeffrey R. Sykes is a partner with the law firm of Meuleman Mollerup
LLP. He represents businesses with legal problems and concerns
involving contracts, insurance, employment and real property matters.
Mr. Sykes can be reached at 208.342.6066, or by email at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
|