BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER

摘要

Insurance plays a key role in mitigating risks on a construction project. Despite this, its mere incidence is not enough to absolve contractual liability. Whether or not a party is accountable will depend on the contract terms. Insurance is often used in one of two ways. On the one hand, it can safeguard the liability of one or more insured parties. Take professional indemnity insurance, for instance. If a consultant is negligent, it still attracts the blame but often its insurer will end up writing the cheque. Contrarily, a risk purposely passed on to insurers negates the need for either party to bear its burden. With integrated project insurance project participants look to the insurance rather than to each other when things go wrong. That remains a nascent product, though, so it's in relation to construction all-risks (CAR) policies that the contrasting approaches have been most evident. In GD Construction (St Albans) Ltd vs Scottish & Newcastle plc, the employer had sued the appellant when a fire extensively damaged the public house under refurbishment. It failed because the intention of the construction contract, a JCT IFC 84, was that neither party should be liable for damage caused by specified perils, including fire. Consistent with a JCT form, the CAR insurance ought to have dealt with the loss. Alas, the employer was charged with procuring such cover and had omitted to do so.