Tammy Pike
CPCU, AU, ARM, AIM, AMIM
GROUP INSURANCE MANAGER
KIEWIT CORPORATION
Kiewit Corporation
• More than 125 years of construction excellence
• Operations throughout North America
• Experienced and dedicated management team
• Emphasis on safety and quality
Infrastructure
50%
Industrial
39%
Building
7%
Mining
4%
Kiewit Today
2011 Revenues
Strength as a Recognized Leader
• 2011 FORTUNE 500 company
• Engineering News-Record –
Top 10 Contractor since 1995
• 2011 ENR Rankings
• 3rd Overall
• 1st Domestic Heavy
• 2nd Transportation
• 4th Power
• 4th By New Contracts
• 9th Industrial Process/Petro
• 6th Working Abroad
• 37th Domestic General Building
Kiewit Today
Workmanship Exclusion – The Contractor Perspective
• What language do we usually see?
• What challenges do we face with such
language?
• What language do we want to see?
What language do we usually see?
What language do we usually see?
(H) Cost of making good faulty or
defective workmanship or material,
but this exclusion shall not
apply to physical damage resulting
there from;
Challenges with the language
• What is “ensuing” / “resulting”
damage?
• What is “damage”?
Challenges with the language
• Application of the exclusion to an entire operation
Challenges with the language
• When is the exclusion applicable?
What language do we want / expect to see
Good - LEG2 or equivalent
Better - LEG3 or equivalent
Or (Best)….we’ll take the
broadest language possible!
Conclusion
• Quality Assurance and Quality Control is the Contractor’s responsibility and risk…However…
• Biggest risk is not perils, but consequences of mistakes
• Managing and transferring risk is our goal
• Broadest language and consistent application = GOAL!