Almost all the coverage conflicts we see in construction have the same origin: the damage occurred at the border between two stages, and each policy understood that it was the other's responsibility. Organising the stages from the beginning avoids the discussion.
Stage one: execution
It is the long period and the one everyone is aware of. It covers the material damage to the work in progress, and incorporates the civil liability derived from the execution. The points that should be fixed in writing are the capital, which must include the final budget including modifications, and the treatment of materials stored outside the site or in transit, which often falls outside the scope.
Stage two: testing and commissioning
The shortest stage and by far the one with the highest claim rate. When energising installations or loading machinery, the probability of damage is concentrated. Many policies limit testing to a small number of weeks, a period that is exhausted in complex industrial installations. Extending it costs little and avoids being left without cover at the critical moment.
Stage three: reception and maintenance period
Here, we must distinguish between two figures that sound similar. Simple maintenance only covers damage caused by the contractor when rectifying defects. Broad maintenance also covers damage that manifests during that period but has its cause in the execution phase, which is the usual scenario. Contracting the simple believing to have the broad is a common and costly mistake.
Section four: decennial guarantee
It covers structural damage that compromises the stability of the building for ten years from reception, and in residential construction, it is mandatory. Its particularity is that it requires a technical control organisation to supervise during the work, so it cannot be contracted retrospectively: if it was not organised at the start, there is no way to recover it at the end.
Agents and their responsibility
Developer, builder, designer, project manager, and execution manager each respond for their area, and the law presumes solidarity when the cause cannot be individualised. Therefore, coordination between the all-risk of the work and the professional civil liability policies of the technicians is not a formality: it is what prevents solidarity from falling on the one with the most solvency.
