Project Insurance Risks

 

Does the Responsible Developer maintain adequate liability insurance on each project?

Yes, absolutely!  A major underinsured or uninsured loss can devastate your project. 

The last decade saw construction project insurance premiums for commercial general liability skyrocket to the point where many developers joked that the insurance premiums were only slightly less than the actual policy limits!  

This meteoric rise in premiums was due to extensive litigation where policy limits were routinely paid out during the 1990s and early 2000s for defect and water intrusion damage claims.  You remember, many insurers either left the WA market or would only insure lower risk builders.  As the 2007 recession deepened some developers, depending on the type of project,  opted to reduce coverage or worse, to go bare on the completed operations side.

In the last decade some other insurers have entered the WA market and the premiums for many types of liability insurance have decreased.  But are you still at risk of being underinsured? 

Yes.

Because in some egregious cases the reason the premiums are less, is that if you held that policy up to the sun, it would not block the light due to all the "holes" in it.  Those holes represent policy exclusions that drastically limit or eliminate some of the most critical coverages.  Here's an example.  One insurer from Oregon now sells reasonably priced liability policies to developers and contractors.  The policy limits appear to be the typical $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate.  So the insured feels adequately insured.  There is, however, an exclusion buried deep in the policy for water intrusion damage (a very common occurrence in the PNW) and the policy caps that coverage at only $15,000. 00.  No that is not a misprint, a $1,000,000 policy with a maximum coverage limitation of only $15,000 for water damage.  Imagine that exclusion in the event of an extensive roof leak or other water related damage.

Another example is a well known insurer from Nebraska that decided to place certain requirements on policy holders in order to obtain the benefit of coverage (yes more than just paying the premium).  The policy requirements demand that if you are the developer or general contractor, that you will only get the benefit of your policy coverage and limits if you have all of your subcontractors and suppliers name you as additional insureds and must have them sign indemnity agreements.  While that is always a good practice, if  you have 20 trades on a job or turnover during the work, it can be tough to be named by all the trades and have all of them sign indemnity agreements.  If, however, you fail to obtain all the required additional insured endorsements and agreements, you may find you have limited coverage or none at all.

So what is the Responsible Developer supposed to do?  A great start is to work with a reliable insurance broker and get sample policies with the current exclusions and actually read them all. 

Even better is to work with a lawyer that knows insurance coverage and related litigation and have them advise you before place the policy.  Between the two, you should be able to discern whether you are really adequately insured or if you are unnecessarily exposing yourself and your project to significant underinsured or uninsured risks.

Lastly, even if you are the consummate do-it-yourselfer, please, read the policy....before you buy it and put it in the file drawer. 

 

Why Developers Should Track All Warranty Claims

 

Does the Responsible Developer track all warranty claims?  Absolutely, it is just good business!

It is axiomatic that when a development project is complete that there are a number of warranties that must be tracked and managed as part of the post project completion entitlements and obligations.  This risk management process applies to all projects, public and private, and depending on who you are in the project hierarchy, it is a continuation of the project financial analysis.

Yet many parties to the project myopically focus solely on the contractual written warranty period, which typically is one year.  The Responsible Developer, however, tracks all relevant warranty periods including those express and implied at law warranties.  Why?  Because anything less may just be throwing money away.  Who can afford to do that in these challenging economic times?  

The actual process is relatively simple.  Once a project achieves substantial completion, the following warranties should be calendared and tracked:

1.  90 days prior to expiration of contractor's 1 year warranty.

2.  90 days prior to expiration of any manufacturers' warranties.

3.  180 days prior to expiration of all (3,4 and 6 year) contract statutes of limitation and repose.

The reason you calendar these dates is so that you can inspect and test the work, materials and systems in your project for any premature failures or damage and give your self enough time to document it and provide that written information to the party the owes you the warranty obligation-before that party is immune from suit.

Some public developers may be less concerned about the expiration of statutes of limitation because Washington law provides that where the work was for the benefit of the state the six year statute of limitations does not apply.  A public entity, however cannot afford to rest on that laurel too long, because many contractors are either corporations or limited liability companies that after the project may become dissolved and immune from suit.  While there are artful ways to draft around such future warranty impediments in the contract, developers can easily monitor the status of their contractor's legal status by using the information maintained by the Washington Secretary of State and Labor and Industries.

The reason you as the Responsible Developer need to make this effort is so that in the event a post completion inspection reveals latent defects in a product or work, you will be able to timely make a claim and either obtain repairs, insurance money or both.  If you fail to calendar these dates or make the effort, then you may just be throwing money away.  Imagine being asked by tax payers or investors why no one had the foresight to include this analysis as part of your project.

Well now you know what the Responsible Developer does as an integral part of maximizing the value of all of the warranties it may be a beneficiary of.

Green Building Gains and Risk Management Improvements

Environmental Leader reports that in five years the total US green building market value is projected to increase from $71.1 billion to $173.5 billion. This represents a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 19.5%. The commercial green building segment of this market is expected to increase from $35.6 billion to $81.8 billion. According to the report, this surge in green building has the potential to create 2.5 million American jobs, about a 30% increase in jobs within the construction industry.

This remarkable surge of green building activity will be accompanied by a surge in the risks associated with green building. As discussed in some of our prior blogs, the key to managing these risks is to contract carefully and make sure that expectations are defined and responsibilities for those expectations are specifically assigned to the parties in the contract documents. To address some of these risks, the insurance industry offers some niche coverage for green building projects. For example, Chartis Insurance offers "green reputation coverage", designed to address the threat or reality of adverse publicity when a building fails to meet green industry standards. Coverage includes access to crisis consultants and a range of other services to mitigate adverse publicity. Chartis also offers "green indoor environment coverage", providing coverage for bodily injury claims resulting from specialized equipment and products used to improve air and water quality in green buildings.

Similarly, Fireman's Fund recently began offering a five percent discount to policyholders with Energy Star buildings, and offers "green financial incentive coverage" for policyholders that paid for green improvements to their property with help from a tax incentive or financial grant and then suffered a loss when the building did not achieve the targeted rating and the policyholder is obligated to return the benefit received. These coverages are described in more detail in an article from Rueters.

Careful contracting and thoughtful insurance coverage will help reduce the risks and enhance the benefits of green building for all contracting parties and end users as green building in public and private construction continues its exponential growth.