It would be the normal case that the sub contractor provides his own insurances at no additional cost to the main contractor but certainly not always the case. The three you quote would normally be covered this way.
But sometimes employers insure the works, not the main contractor and covers everyone, sometimes the main contractors insurance will cover everyone. Often each party will cover specific risks on the project by insurance and jointly insure the other parties for just these risks. Again however, the three you quote would normally be covered by the party directly responsible, possibly with the exception of third party liability.
It wouldn’t be usual to require the sub contractor to copy the main contractors insurance in every detail as the sub contractor obviously isn’t building the whole of the works (or is he?) and therefore the risks are less and possibly different, eg the sub contractor may be responsible for transporting some equipment to site and need insurance for this, whereas the main contractors insurance covers the equipment from when it arrives on site or it is fixed into the works.
Again, as always, it comes down to exactly what the contract(s) say.
Member for
20 years 3 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Mohammed Irfan… on Tue, 2007-10-16 00:53
Isnt it preferable that P.S subcontractor should arrange for all these insurances without any charge to M.C. and still be within the conditions of contract.(Contract interpretation definitely supports this, isnt it?)
1. Workmen compensation
2. Third Party Liability
3. Professional Indemnity Insurance (If applicable)
Irfan
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Mon, 2007-10-15 13:13
If theres also a seperate sub contract then probably not. If the sub contract is silent on those matters, maybe, maybe not!!!!
Not a helpful answer I know, but trying to incorporate the main contract into a subcontract (every main contractor tries to do it) doesnt usually work very well and is not to be recommended.
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: P.S. Contractor, Insurance & Bonds
It would be the normal case that the sub contractor provides his own insurances at no additional cost to the main contractor but certainly not always the case. The three you quote would normally be covered this way.
But sometimes employers insure the works, not the main contractor and covers everyone, sometimes the main contractors insurance will cover everyone. Often each party will cover specific risks on the project by insurance and jointly insure the other parties for just these risks. Again however, the three you quote would normally be covered by the party directly responsible, possibly with the exception of third party liability.
It wouldn’t be usual to require the sub contractor to copy the main contractors insurance in every detail as the sub contractor obviously isn’t building the whole of the works (or is he?) and therefore the risks are less and possibly different, eg the sub contractor may be responsible for transporting some equipment to site and need insurance for this, whereas the main contractors insurance covers the equipment from when it arrives on site or it is fixed into the works.
Again, as always, it comes down to exactly what the contract(s) say.
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: P.S. Contractor, Insurance & Bonds
Isnt it preferable that P.S subcontractor should arrange for all these insurances without any charge to M.C. and still be within the conditions of contract.(Contract interpretation definitely supports this, isnt it?)
1. Workmen compensation
2. Third Party Liability
3. Professional Indemnity Insurance (If applicable)
Irfan
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: P.S. Contractor, Insurance & Bonds
If theres also a seperate sub contract then probably not. If the sub contract is silent on those matters, maybe, maybe not!!!!
Not a helpful answer I know, but trying to incorporate the main contract into a subcontract (every main contractor tries to do it) doesnt usually work very well and is not to be recommended.
Would depend on the exact wording of the two.