Other insurance for construction lawyers

Building works

Insurance issues can arise where construction works, such as refurbishment and fit-out works, are carried out to an existing building. Policy coverage and rights of subrogation under the policy may be affected depending on who the policyholder is.

See Practice Note: Works to existing buildings—insurance issues.

When working in an existing building, another issue is the overlap between the contractor's all risks policy and the contractor's public liability policy. The JCT contracts are the only contracts which make specific insurance provisions for work being done to, or adjacent to, existing buildings. The provision is that the employer takes out a contractor’s all risks policy which covers both the works and the existing buildings in the joint names of the employer and the contractor. However, in respect of the existing buildings, the cover provided to the contractor is only in respect of the 'specified perils', not in respect of all risks (see: JCT contracts—insurance). This is Insurance Option

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Construction News

ADGM court’s mandatory interim relief powers prevail over LCIA Rules

Arbitration analysis: The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark decision confirming the dominance of the mandatory law of the seat over institutional arbitration rules regarding interim relief. The court allowed an appeal against the first instance court’s refusal to grant a worldwide freezing order (WFO) in support of an ADGM-seated London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration. The first instance judge refused relief because the applicants had not obtained the tribunal’s prior authorisation, which is a prerequisite under Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules (2020) once a tribunal is formed. The Court of Appeal held that mandatory statutory powers to grant interim relief cannot be displaced by institutional rules, and that a WFO may be granted despite the lack of tribunal authorisation [A30, ¶ 17]. The court found that section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015, which empowers the court to grant interim measures in cases of urgency or where the tribunal cannot act effectively, is a mandatory provision [A30, ¶ 18; quoting Arbitration Regulations, section 31]. Therefore, pursuant to LCIA Article 14.2, which subjects the tribunal’s duties to mandatory laws, a party exercising a statutory right under the law of the seat does not commit a breach of the arbitration agreement [A30, ¶ 21]. This decision confirms that the ADGM Courts will intervene to preserve assets in urgent cases, reinforcing the ADGM as a high-intervention seat for protective measures. Written by Othmane Saadani, partner and Brayden Winkler, associate at Bin Sevan Advocates & Legal Consultants.

View Construction by content type :

Popular documents