I am getting tired of the government orgs making up requirements without checking to see if it is feasable. Quite often I see requirements written up by some lawyer that are against public policy! Maybe they should check in with the Insurance department!.
ditto guru!!! This is just one more example of the government not understanding how private business works. Certain risks are uninsurable because they contradict the very purpose of insurance and are sometimes also considered to be against public policy. Some of these things NYC is looking for are NOT INTENDED TO BE INSURABLE.
As every good adjuster knows, we will pay all sums the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages for pd and bi in the policy term and coverage territory. We won’t gauarantee the contractors work, nor will we pay for another parties negligence absent a valid indemnification agreement. Nice try.
The insurance requirements makes perfect sense if your a Union Contractor. Those firms will be able to expand and charge more for the work, since those GC firms have large enough business volumne to command the insurance required by the City from the carriers.
Most work in the outer boroughs and parts of Manhatten are done by small and midsize non union shops and those firms will not be able to meet the insurance requirements. There is a pattern here from the the DOB, favoring union shops over non union shops by way of the recent rules and regulations and making some requirements almost impossible to obtain, such as CM licenses, where union workers are getting their license quickly and making the non union workers waiting more than a year to process their applications. The same thing goes for required class training, which is not a problem in itself, but, some classes are mostly given only by union related schools such as the scafold class apart from the OSHA10. There is a major issue brewing here that just doesnt smell right!
The industry must find acceptable ways to deal with this new requirement, otherwise many firms will need to close up shop.
Some of the requirements are impossible. They are written by people who are trying to trap union and nonunion shops into breach of contract. it is by design and every lawyer that contributes to it should be disbarred.
I don’t care how big you are or how small you are. Some require ESP – how do you notify someone you don’t even know who needs to be notified since they are not listed on the policy because of blanket additional insured status.
How do you notify the blanket AI of a “material change in the policy?” What is a material change? Selling a pick up and replacing it with a Semi? Adding 20 additional insureds since the contract was signed? Who decides?
How about the insured decides to cancel midterm and tells the agent on day one. Is the agent then going to say “I am sorry mr. insured, but we can’t cancel the policy until we notify every additional insured in 30 days”
Ot my personal favorite: You will notify the GC of any reduction in limits from claims. Are you kidding me?
I understand the reason why these request came about. But there are reasonable solutions and there theoretical solutions.
It is just plain idiotic and try to tell that to some guy who knows nothing about insurance but the checklist the municipality gave him.
The staff at the buildings department have trouble processing permits as it is. Do we really expect them to be able to differentiate the type of coverage by type of permit?
I am getting tired of the government orgs making up requirements without checking to see if it is feasable. Quite often I see requirements written up by some lawyer that are against public policy! Maybe they should check in with the Insurance department!.
ditto guru!!! This is just one more example of the government not understanding how private business works. Certain risks are uninsurable because they contradict the very purpose of insurance and are sometimes also considered to be against public policy. Some of these things NYC is looking for are NOT INTENDED TO BE INSURABLE.
As every good adjuster knows, we will pay all sums the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages for pd and bi in the policy term and coverage territory. We won’t gauarantee the contractors work, nor will we pay for another parties negligence absent a valid indemnification agreement. Nice try.
The insurance requirements makes perfect sense if your a Union Contractor. Those firms will be able to expand and charge more for the work, since those GC firms have large enough business volumne to command the insurance required by the City from the carriers.
Most work in the outer boroughs and parts of Manhatten are done by small and midsize non union shops and those firms will not be able to meet the insurance requirements. There is a pattern here from the the DOB, favoring union shops over non union shops by way of the recent rules and regulations and making some requirements almost impossible to obtain, such as CM licenses, where union workers are getting their license quickly and making the non union workers waiting more than a year to process their applications. The same thing goes for required class training, which is not a problem in itself, but, some classes are mostly given only by union related schools such as the scafold class apart from the OSHA10. There is a major issue brewing here that just doesnt smell right!
The industry must find acceptable ways to deal with this new requirement, otherwise many firms will need to close up shop.
Some of the requirements are impossible. They are written by people who are trying to trap union and nonunion shops into breach of contract. it is by design and every lawyer that contributes to it should be disbarred.
I don’t care how big you are or how small you are. Some require ESP – how do you notify someone you don’t even know who needs to be notified since they are not listed on the policy because of blanket additional insured status.
How do you notify the blanket AI of a “material change in the policy?” What is a material change? Selling a pick up and replacing it with a Semi? Adding 20 additional insureds since the contract was signed? Who decides?
How about the insured decides to cancel midterm and tells the agent on day one. Is the agent then going to say “I am sorry mr. insured, but we can’t cancel the policy until we notify every additional insured in 30 days”
Ot my personal favorite: You will notify the GC of any reduction in limits from claims. Are you kidding me?
I understand the reason why these request came about. But there are reasonable solutions and there theoretical solutions.
It is just plain idiotic and try to tell that to some guy who knows nothing about insurance but the checklist the municipality gave him.
Let’s drive up costs of construction in New York some more, why don’t we?
The staff at the buildings department have trouble processing permits as it is. Do we really expect them to be able to differentiate the type of coverage by type of permit?