Negligent contractors should be held liable, FAA insists

Paul Barrett

Oct 14th 2008, 00:12

Mr Hayes makes a good few points why a simple comprehensive insurance would not work.
There must be a simple absolute safeguard for others property and life in the area of demolition, excavation and construction.
If the developer is not in a position to guarantee safety and immediate restoration of any and all damage then no works should take place.
Currently, it would appear that no one will take responsibility and it is appalling that third parties should be left to pick up the pieces and or fight it out for years in the Courts. Meanwhile the developer walks away laughing all the way to the bank.

Christopher Hayes

Oct 13th 2008, 18:22

2. Insurers generally do insist on condition surveys being undertaken on surrounding properties before granting cover but this does nothing to alter the policy position. I cannot imagine that many insurers will be prepared to underwrite a risk where a claim is virtually inevitable. Nevertheless, the damage provoked by the type of accident to which Mr Barrett has alluded is certainly not superficial and whilst not being privy to its precise circumstances, it may well be that it would fall for consideration within the scope of the extension referred to.

In the absence of insurance to provide for the rectification of superficial damage (which can be expensive where bathrooms and floor tiling are involved), it may equally allay Mr Barratt’s concern were a bond to be required of a contractor in addition to the requirement to insure. The condition surveys and the subsequent administration of any claims from third parties falling outside the reach of policy cover could be handled by an independent architect or loss adjuster reporting to MEPA.

Christopher Hayes

Oct 13th 2008, 18:20

1. The matter of insurance as suggested by Mr Barratt is a step in the right direction but it is not a comprehensive solution. Damage to third party property by vibration or a loss of support is a standard exclusion in most policies covering a building contractor’s legal liability although many insurers will extend the policy against payment of an additional premium. Nonetheless, the extension of cover granted is, in fact, quite limited in scope. Essentially, it excludes, amongst other things, damage which is foreseeable given the nature of the work (or the manner of its execution) and damage which is superficial.

When an existing building is demolished and the site excavated, some measure of vibration induced damage in the buildings in immediate contiguity is often unavoidable. As this species of damage is entirely foreseeable and may be almost inevitable, it lacks the fortuity necessary to bring it within the scope of a policy that is designed to cover accidents.

Paul Barrett

Oct 13th 2008, 11:06

A simple law enforcing any demolition/excavation works to be covered by a comprehensive insurance policy covering damage to any building/property within 100m and an additional 50m for every level below ground level to be excavated.
The insurance certificate to be produced to MEPA before any application is approved.

The insurance company to carry out a detailed condition state inspection of all possible effective property before works start (at developers expense), and before issuing an insurance certificate.

A copy of the insurance certificate to be displayed with the MEPA authority notice beside the other details that are now required to be displayed on building sites.