Sectors

    Construction & erection

    Owners and contractors carry risk from natural events, site incidents, damage during testing and liability to neighbouring property. Claim disputes usually turn on the cause of the incident and how exclusions are read.

    • Free consultation
    • Same-day response
    Tower crane at a construction site in Vietnam

    Typical exposures

    1. 1

      Natural events during works

      Heavy rain, flooding and landslides affecting excavations, temporary works and materials.

    2. 2

      Technical incidents

      Structural collapse, equipment damage during erection and testing.

    3. 3

      Third-party liability

      Damage to neighbouring houses, buildings and infrastructure.

    4. 4

      Contractors' plant

      Cranes, excavators and specialist equipment damaged, overturned or stolen.

    Common claim pitfalls

    • Disputes over cause

      Insurers cite faulty design, workmanship or materials to apply exclusions.

    • Missing site records

      No diaries, monitoring data or acceptance records to show how the incident developed.

    • Misreading extensions

      Not knowing whether the policy covers debris removal, professional fees or weather damage.

    Common insurance covers

    • Contractors' all risks (CAR)
    • Erection all risks (EAR)
    • Third-party liability
    • Contractors' plant and machinery

    Illustrative cases

    Construction · CAR

    Dispute over the cause of a site incident

    Situation
    A diaphragm wall collapsed after heavy rain, affecting neighbouring buildings.
    Issue
    The insurer argued the cause was faulty design, an excluded peril.
    How we help
    We worked with engineers on cause analysis, checked the exclusion and extension clauses and prepared the technical arguments for the adjuster.
    What to do beforehand
    Keep site diaries, monitoring data and stage acceptance records. They are the key evidence in any argument about cause.

    Erection · EAR

    Transformer failure during commissioning

    Situation
    A power project's transformer failed during testing, damaging connected equipment.
    Issue
    The insurer declined the whole claim as a manufacturer's defect.
    How we help
    We separated the cost of replacing the defective part (usually excluded) from resulting damage to other items (which may be covered under the wording) and rebuilt the calculation item by item.
    What to do beforehand
    Read exactly how the defective design and material exclusion is worded: what is excluded and what remains covered differs between standard wordings.

    Illustrative scenarios drawn from common market cases, not the file of a specific client.

    Related articles

    Talk to a specialist

    Send us your policy or a description of what happened and the relevant specialist will reply the same day. Advice is free; fees apply only once you decide to engage our services.