Fifth Circuit Holds That Ensuing Loss Provision of Builders’ Risk Policy Requires Two Separate Events to Qualify for the Construction Exclusion Carve-Out

Benjamin Stearns | PropertyCasualtyFocus

In Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 19-20216 (August 3, 2020), the Fifth Circuit determined that Liberty Mutual’s policy does not cover a construction company’s claim for window damage to a skyscraper caused by a subcontractor’s welding because the policyholder failed to show the damage resulted from a covered peril.

The case turned on the court’s interpretation of the policy’s construction exclusion, which included an exception for “an act, defect, error or omission that results in a covered peril.”  The policy defined “covered peril” as a “risk[] of direct physical loss or damage unless the loss is . . . caused by a peril that is excluded” under the policy. The court characterized the exception as an “ensuing loss provision” or a “resulting loss provision,” which “act as exceptions to property insurance exclusions and operate to provide coverage when, as a result of an excluded peril, a covered peril arises and causes damage.” Such provisions are “only triggered when one (excluded) peril results in a distinct (covered) peril, meaning there must be two separate events for the exception to trigger.” (emphasis added).

The policyholder’s claim resulted from damage to a skyscraper’s windows caused by molten slag dripping and blowing in the wind from a welding job being conducted 18 stories up on the same building. The parties agreed that the damage would be excluded (because it resulted from an act or error relating to construction), unless the ensuing loss exception applied.

The Fifth Circuit found that the ensuing loss exception did not reinstate coverage because there was no second, separate event that caused the damage. “Put simply, Appellants’ welding operation involved falling slag, which damaged the exterior glass of [the building]. The welding operation is inseparable from the falling slag; they are not two separate events. The falling slag is not an independent event that resulted in a covered peril.” The court contrasted this sequence of events with a hypothetical claim involving a construction-related act that caused holes in the windows, with subsequent water damage to the interior of the building resulting from a storm that forced water through the holes. In such a case, the water damage would be covered by the ensuing loss provision, although the damage to the windows themselves would be excluded.

The court rejected the appellants’ attempt to fit the claim within the reading of the exception adopted by the court, reasoning that while it could be argued that “the slag is separable from the welding operation, we do not think that a single phenomenon that is clearly an excluded risk under the policy was meant to become compensable because in a philosophical sense it can also be characterized as a distinct peril.”

As a result, the Fifth Circuit held that the claim was excluded, affirming summary judgment in Liberty Mutual’s favor.

Drones Help Insurance Companies Check Damage in Cedar Rapids

Erin Jordan | Claims Journal

Insurance adjusters who descended on Cedar Rapids after the Aug. 10 derecho storm are using drones to check roofs and asking homeowners with less severe damage to take their own photos.

Some of this is due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has reduced the number of experienced adjusters willing to travel. But the changes also help speed up claims and get repairs done sooner, company representatives said.

“Drones or aerial imaging helps them estimate the claims,” said Scott Hauptman, vice president for claims for Grange Insurance, of Columbus, Ohio, which is working with Integrity Insurance, of Appleton, Wis., to handle at least 500 storm-related claims in Cedar Rapids. “It’s as efficient as possible and helps them (adjusters) safeguard their health.”

Cedar Rapids officials told The Gazette on Wednesday that 140 buildings are too damaged to be occupied. Several hundred more have non-structural or cosmetic damage.

Before buildings can be fixed and people can return to their homes, insurance companies must document the damage and determine how the loss will be covered.

Many insurance companies have sent catastrophic teams to Eastern Iowa. Nationwide Insurance, for example, stationed some at the Home Depot on First Avenue SE in Cedar Rapids.

“Really the biggest thing we’ve found in Cedar Rapids, due to lack of internet and power, is they (homeowners) weren’t sure if they had a claim filed or not,” said Courtney Kannas, property field claims manager for a Nationwide team that covers Iowa, Nebraska and parts of Kansas and Missouri. “If they didn’t have a claim filed, we could do that for them. We also could give them a high-level understanding of their policies.”

Integrity adjusters sent a drone Wednesday afternoon over the Wired Production Group’s building on N Towne Lane in Cedar Rapids to get a better look at a roof that was peeled off and a crumbled back wall.

“This 12,000-square-foot building is a total loss,” said Ron Rausch, Wired Production president and owner. “They (Integrity) brought a structural engineer in here to document that was the case.”

An adjuster also looked at millions of dollars in cameras and other equipment Wired Production uses to stage events for many Eastern Iowa companies, including The Gazette. When the roof was ripped off, rain and water from broken water mains flooded the offices and ruined much of the gear, Rausch said. The firm is setting up operations temporarily in Dubuque until the Cedar Rapids site is rebuilt.

“They were very amenable to letting us start the cleanup process and work with people we want to,” Rausch said of the insurance company.

State Farm, the first insurer to get Federal Aviation Administration approval to operate drones over people, has been using drones to gather information on Cedar Rapids claims, spokeswoman Tammi Estes said.

Nationwide hasn’t been using drones in Cedar Rapids because of the challenges of photographing around fallen trees, Kannas said, but the company is encouraging policy holders with minor damage to photograph the property and submit claims online.

“It gives us a better picture right away as to the extent of the damage they have to their home so we can get them emergency reimbursement or set them up with temporarily housing a little quicker,” she said.

A Washington, D.C., law firm said in a news release that homeowners and businesses hit by the derecho will face challenges in getting adequate reimbursement.

Weisbrod Matteis & Copley, which represents homeowners in lawsuits against insurers, pointed to an Aug. 4 webinar with insurance executives who said many older adjusters were reluctant to go out in the field because of risk of contracting coronavirus.

Some insurance companies also have struggled to get adjusters into states that require quarantines for visitors.

“After battling the insurance industry after Katrina, I fear that Iowans will be left at the mercy of a B team of insurance adjusters,” Jim Hood, a former Mississippi Attorney General who now works for the law firm, said in a statement. “Storm victims will need to quickly document their damages with drones, pictures and lists of damaged items.”

One insurance executive on the webinar said he thought fewer adjusters in the field would increase fraud.

“I do have some concerns we are going to have to do more virtual adjusting,” said Jed Rhoads, president and chief underwriting officer for Markel Global Reinsurance, based in Virginia. “If we’re adjusting claims through satellite imagery or drones or handheld devices, it could lead to new additional types of fraud.”

People could doctor drone or cellphone images or charge a company additional costs to procure the photos.

Integrity Insurance has been allowing virtual adjusting for several years, Hauptman said, and has developed strategies for detecting fraud.

“We have means on the back end to authenticate the pictures to make sure the time and location are appropriate,” he said. “The vast majority of our customers are great people. If there is fraud in an industry, that affects everyone’s rates.”

About the photo: Cleanup continues around the area in Cedar Rapids on Friday, Aug. 21, 2020 following the Aug. 10 derecho, which left hundreds of thousands of Iowans without power and displaced many whose homes were damaged or destroyed in the heavy winds. (Rebecca F. Miller/The Gazette via AP)

Florida Appellate Court Holds Anti-Concurrent Cause Provision in Exclusion Excludes Entire Loss When a Covered Cause Occurs Concurrently With an Excluded Cause

Derek R. Lenzen | Phelps Dunbar

A Florida appellate court held that where water damaged property through walls and windows (an excluded cause) and also through a door (a covered cause), the all-risk policy’s anti-concurrent cause provision controls, and coverage for the entire loss is excluded. Security First Ins. Co. v. Czelusniak, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D 1151, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 6494 (Fla 3d DCA May 13, 2020).

An insured reported that water entered the interior of the insured property and caused damage and mold growth. The insurer denied coverage, and the insured filed suit. It was undisputed that water entered the property through walls, windows and doors. The policy explicitly excluded loss caused by water entering through walls or windows. However, water entering through doors was not excluded. The trial court granted the insured’s motion for directed verdict pursuant to the concurrent clause doctrine outlined in the case Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co.,Inc., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016) (when damage from an excluded cause occurs concurrently with a covered cause so that a fact-finder is unable to separate the two causes, the entire loss is covered).

The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred in not considering the anti-concurrent cause wording in the exclusion. The policy excluded coverage for damage from water entering through walls or windows “regardless of any other cause or even contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” The court held that because that damage occurred concurrently with the damage from water through doors, coverage for the entire loss is excluded due to the anti-concurrent cause provision in the exclusion.

Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog

Subrogation as a concept is well understood in insurance circles. According to the Institute of Risk Management Institute’s glossary of insurance terms subrogation is “the assignment to an insurer by the terms of [a] policy or by law, after payment of a loss, of the rights fo the insured to recover the amount of the loss from one legally liable for it.” In other words, if an insurer comes out of pocket for something someone else broke, the insurer can turn to that responsible party for reimbursement of its out of pocket costs.

Typically, subrogation is, as stated in IRMI’s glossary of insurance terms, a matter of contract and the rights and responsibilities of parties are set forth within the terms of a policy. However, subrogation may, as stated in IRMI’s glossary, also be matter of law. And this is where equitable subrogation comes in.

“Equitable subrogation,” according to IRMI, is “the right of subrogation granted under common law when one party has made a payment on behalf of another and becomes entitled to whatever recovery rights the other party has against a responsible third party.”

In Pulte Home Corporation v. CBR Electric, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 216, the 4th District Court of Appeal examined a trial court decision finding against an insurer’s equitable contribution claim against several subcontractors in a construction defect lawsuit.

The Pulte Home Case

Pulte Home Corporation was the developer, owner and general contractor of three single-family developments in Murrieta, California. Pulte contracted with various subcontractors to perform work at the developments. Under the terms of Pulte’s subcontracts the subcontractors agreed to defend and indemnity Pulte against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to” their work.

In 2013 and 2014, two groups of homeowners filed lawsuits against Pulte alleging various construction defects at the developments. Pulte tendered defense of the lawsuits to its subcontractors and their insurers pursuant to the indemnity provision in the subcontractors and later filed a cross-complaint against 34 subcontractors for express indemnification and breach of contract. Pulte was defended during the litigation by its insurance carrier, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company.

During the course of litigation, Pulte and several of the subcontractors settled with the plaintiffs for approximately $80,000. The defense costs leading up to the settlement totaled approximately $253,000.

In separate lawsuit, St. Paul sued the subcontractors for reimbursement of an equitable portion of the defense costs it incurred under an equitable subrogation theory. Following a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim on two grounds.

First, the trial court found that St. Paul had not established a “causal connection” between the subcontractors and damages suffered by the homeowners because the subcontractor’s failure to defend Pulte had not “caused the homeowners to file their lawsuit[s] against Pulte and thereby necessitate th[e] defense costs to be incurred.” Second, the trial court found that equitable subrogation is an all-or-nothing claim, and that St. Paul had failed to show that it could shift the entire costs of defense to the subcontractors.

St. Paul appealed.

The Appeal

On Appeal, the 4th District explained that:

Subrogation is defined as the substitution of another person in place of the creditor or claimant to whose rights he or she succeeds in relation to the debt or claim. By undertaking to indemnify or pay the principal debtor’s obligation to the creditor or claimant, the “subrogee” is equitably subrogated to the claimant (or “subrogor”), and succeeds to the subrogor’s rights against the obligor. In the case of insurance, subrogation takes the form of an insurer’s right to be put in the position of the insured in order to pursue recovery from third parties legally responsible to the insured for a loss which the insurer has both insured and paid.

“Equitable subrogation,” explained the Court of Appeal, includes eight elements:

  1. The insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer;
  2. The claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable;
  3. The insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is primarily liable;
  4. The insurer has paid the claim of its insured to protect its own interest and not as a volunteer;
  5. The insured has an existing, assignable cause of action against the defendant which the insured could have asserted for its own benefit had it not been compensated for its loss by the insurer;
  6. The insurer has suffered damages caused by the act or omission upon which the liability of the defendant depends;
  7. Justice requires that the loss be entirely shifted from the insurer to the defendant, whose equitable position is inferior to that of the insurer; and
  8. The insurer’s damages are in a liquidated sum, generally the amount paid to the insured.

As to the first element, the Court of Appeal explained that the trial court had incorrectly interpreted the first element to require St. Paul to show that its insured Pulte suffered a loss for which the subcontractors were “entirely” responsible. Acknowledging that the trial court’s decision appeared to have also relied on the seventh element, “that the loss be entirely shifted from insurer to the defendant,” the Court explained that “the word ‘entirely’ in that context refers not to the total amount the plaintiff (or subrogee) paid, but refers instead to “the claimed loss” (in the second element) that the subrogee is seeking from the defendant on the ground the defendant is primarily liable (third element) for that loss”:

We conclude the trial court’s interpretation of how subrogation operates, which defendants urge us to adopt, is incorrect. While it is true that a subrogee insurer can seek the entire cost of defense – for example, if the insurer is an excess insurer and is claiming the general liability insurer is primarily responsible for the entire loss – a subrogee is not required to do so. In other words, subrogation entirely shifts the claimed loss, but the claimed loss doesn’t have to be entire loss the subrogee suffered.

As to the trial court’s finding that St. Paul had not established a “causal connection” between the subcontractors and damages suffered by the homeowners because the subcontractor’s failure to defend Pulte had not “caused the homeowners to file their lawsuit[s] against Pulte and thereby necessitate th[e] defense costs to be incurred,” the Court of Appeal again disagreed:

Rather than ask whether defendants’ failure to accept Pulte’s tender caused Pulte (and later St. Paul) to incur those costs, the trial court instead asked whether defendants’ failure to accept Pulte’s tender caused the construction defect actions themselves. Under such a causation analysis, a subcontractor’s breach of its duty to defend could never have a causal connection to defense costs. This is because its duty to defend does not arise until after the general contractor is sued and tenders its defense. Such an analysis would have the undesirable result of cloaking subcontractors with impunity for breaching their contractual duties. The proper inquiry is whether defendants’ breach caused Pulte to incur the loss St. Paul is claiming in this litigation (i.e., defendants’ share of the defense costs). The answer to that question is yes.

Conclusion

So there you have it.  As the Pulte court stated: “Equitable subrogation is, as the name suggests, based on equity.” While an insurer may attempt to shift the entirety of its defense costs to others whom it believes are responsible, it is not required to. Further, a defendant’s obligation to reimburse an insurer an equitable portion of its defense costs does not hinge on whether the defendant’s failure to defend an insurer’s insured caused the insurer to incur defense costs, but rather, whether the acts or omissions of the defendant caused or allegedly caused the lawsuit to be filed to begin with.

Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

William S. Bennett | Saxe Doernberger & Vita

From structural collapses to fires, the construction industry has experienced a number of high-profile catastrophes over the past decade. These disasters test the mettle of even the most experienced risk professionals and the strongest insurance programs. Issues can arise in all facets of the company’s contracts and insurance policies, and dealing with the aftermath is an extensive and demanding process that can involve many players.

As overwhelming as the task may seem, however, it is possible for general contractors to get through the disaster with minimal uncovered exposure if proper steps are taken. By understanding some of the exposures a general contractor faces after a catastrophic loss and implementing key risk transfer strategies from the outset of a project, risk professionals can minimize the impact of a loss on the company in the short and long term.

Understanding Possible Risk Exposures

When a catastrophic loss occurs, contractors face a wide array of potential exposures. Unfortunately, many large catastrophic losses involve serious bodily injuries and even loss of life. If such a tragedy occurs, the general contractor can reasonably expect to be named in a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Depending on the scope of the project and the area associated with the loss, the catastrophe may also prompt a wide range of bystander claims, from dust inhalation to emotional distress.

The contractor can also expect claims from nearby businesses for business interruption losses. Generally, these will be based on either being forced to shut down after the loss or experiencing reduced foot traffic as a result of the dangerous state of the building.

In addition to private claims, there may also be significant liabilities to the municipality. These can include costs for security measures for the project site to prevent unauthorized entry or the addition of new infrastructure to change traffic flow. If the municipality cannot pass these costs directly to the owner or contractor immediately, it will certainly seek to do so in a later claim.

There will also be massive first-party losses from the project itself, including extensive repairs. In more extreme situations, the building may be a complete loss, requiring demolition of the existing structure before the owner either walks away or starts rebuilding.

Determining the cause of the loss will be another major component. This includes the collection and preservation of evidence, which will be necessary both for addressing any liability lawsuits and for dealing with insurers whose available coverage may be shaped by the investigation. The plaintiffs’ lawyers, and potentially the municipality, will likely insist that certain protocols be put in place to preserve components of the building that may inform the investigation.

Key Risk Transfer Strategies

Companies can use several risk transfer strategies to help control the range of exposures that may result from a catastrophic construction loss, including:

Give Notice Immediately

Worker and civilian safety should, of course, be the first priority for the construction company’s risk manager after a catastrophic loss. From there, you should immediately think about facilitating risk transfer. This means providing notice of the loss to every potentially implicated insurance company to which you have a connection. This is the simplest and most proactive step you can take to cross a potential future issue off your list.

Communicate with your broker immediately. Some coverages have explicit, time-sensitive notice requirements. Often found in excess liability policies, crisis-related coverage extensions can be a valuable source of quick cash in the wake of a significant loss—typically around $200,000 to $500,000. This generally covers costs associated with securing the site, providing medical services to injured victims, and engaging with consulting services such as public relations and crisis management. Frequently, these provisions will have very short notice periods—sometimes as little as 24 hours. Your broker should be able to help you identify what coverage is available in your policies and assist you in the notice process.

Even if you are unsure whether a particular policy could be connected to the loss, it is better to give precautionary notice than risk giving late notice, especially in a state where late notice is a strong defense against coverage. Try to imagine if there is any scenario—no matter how unlikely—where the policy could be implicated and, if there is, submit precautionary notice as soon as possible. For example, if your project experienced a crane collapse, consider whether someone could have hacked into the crane’s operating system and contributed to the collapse, potentially triggering your cyber policy. Is it possible there was an operator error that could have criminal implications? If so, perhaps your crime policy is a potential target. If you cannot rule it out with certainty, you should strongly consider giving precautionary notice.

Tender to Every Potentially Involved Subcontractor

The liability insurance model for the project will be a determining factor in the complexity of managing the liability arising from the loss. The claim will be infinitely simpler to manage if the project is insured under a contractor-controlled insurance program (CCIP), owner-controlled insurance program (OCIP) or even a project-specific general liability policy issued to the owner and general contractor. Although there will still be some finger-pointing among the insureds due to the likely presence of some uncovered liability, in this scenario, there will be ample opportunity for cooperation, as all parties will seek coverage from the same insurer. This is not to say that this will make the process easy, but it will likely prevent, or at least simplify, one massive component of the process: the inevitable declaratory judgment action for additional insured coverage.

If the project is insured under a traditional risk transfer model, this will likely be a messy process. At the outset, it will not be clear who is responsible for the loss. Everyone, including the subcontractors’ insurers, will seek to blame someone else. The additional insured tenders are vitally important in this process and should be made promptly to any subcontractor who could have some responsibility for the loss. Depending on the scope of the loss, many subcontractors could be involved, dictating dozens of tenders. The more insurers you can involve in the process, the more sources you will be able to call on at the eventual settlement tables. Ideally, your contracts will require additional insured coverage without any requirement of contractual privity on a primary and non-contributory basis, dictating that the subcontractors’ insurers must pay before your own policy. Collecting certificates with current and consistently updated policy information for all subcontractors will also help to facilitate this process.

It is crucial to remember that, if there is even a possibility for coverage under a subcontractor’s policy, that insurer is obligated to defend the claim in full. This means even seemingly baseless allegations made regarding a particular subcontractor’s role could give rise to a complete duty to defend the entire case against you. In some instances, that question may even be determined through extrinsic evidence, meaning your own knowledge of a subcontractor’s potential liability could be used to invoke a duty to defend, even without pleadings implicating them. The burden is on the defending insurers to determine how to allocate the costs, based on their “other insurance” language.

If you are fortunate, you may get some of these insurers to accept your tender and pick up your defense from the initial tender. However, the majority of these subcontractors will likely deny your tender, at least initially. Some of these may warrant responsive letters, but it is highly likely that the scope of the loss and the number of denials will warrant a declaratory judgment action to clarify the scope of coverage available from each policy. Considering that each subcontractor will likely have one or two excess policies in addition to their primary general liability policy, this can mean a lawsuit with dozens of insurer defendants. Contractors should work with their own insurers to try to develop an arrangement in which the insurer either undertakes or funds the insured to undertake this action, as it directly benefits the contractor’s insurer.

Focus on the Builders’ Risk Policy

On the first-party side of the loss impact, the builders’ risk policy will be the main focus. A good builders’ risk policy from an insurer with a collaborative approach can be vital to minimize the impact of the loss. Some insurers are more cooperative than others in this process. With respect to coverage under these policies, there are several coverage provisions that can have a tremendous impact for your company:

All Risks. The policy should be written to cover all risks of direct physical loss rather than specified perils. This limits the insured’s burden of proof to showing there was a loss and shifts the burden to the insurer to prove it was the result of some specified excluded cause.

LEGIII Faulty Work Exclusion. LEGIII refers to the third iteration of the London Engineering Group policy forms’ faulty workmanship and/or design exclusions. Under this exclusion and accompanying exception, when defective work or design cause damage, the insured is entitled to coverage for the resulting damage and for the repair of defective work itself, provided the defective work is repaired according to the original -standards, without any improvement.

Extra Expense. Typically sublimited, this feature varies somewhat among forms, but generally provides coverage for the extra costs necessary to maintain the course of construction after the loss with minimal impact.

Expediting Expense. Similar to extra expense, this feature typically provides coverage for extra costs necessary to get a delayed project back on its pre-loss schedule.

Protection of Property/Sue and Labor. Protection of property typically covers costs associated with securing the site after a loss to prevent further loss and/or minimize any potential additional impact of a loss event. This is typically sublimited.

Soft Costs/Delay in Completion. Varying in scope, these common provisions can cover costs aside from those directly associated with the physical loss. Common covered costs include interest on extended loans, additional insurance premiums and additional real estate taxes. Coverage typically takes effect after a waiting period (often 30 days), which begins the day of expected project completion. From a contractor’s perspective, an owner-placed builders’ risk policy should contemplate this coverage, as it will likely reduce claims brought by the owner.

Valuation Provision. The insured should look for a policy that values the loss based on the actual cost to rebuild or, alternatively, the cost to rebuild immediately before the loss. Actual cash value provisions can significantly limit the available coverage.

Demolition and Debris Removal. While demolition is typically considered part of the general cost to rebuild, debris removal is generally a separate sublimited coverage extension. The policy should explicitly contemplate debris removal, and not limit demolition.

Work with Your General Liability Insurer to Bucket Costs

As the general contractor, your own general liability insurer will be a vital resource in the risk transfer process. Even if you can convince a subcontractor’s insurer to accept an additional insured tender from first tender, that will likely still be months after the loss occurs. By that point, there will likely already be numerous lawsuits filed against you, the city will be demanding additional infrastructure to secure the site and prevent further issues, and evidence collection and preservation will already be underway. You will be looking to your own insurer to fund these costs.

Communicate with your general liability insurer early and often. Many of the costs early in the process can be fairly attributed to your defense. The standard ISO CG 00 01 general liability policy form covers “all expenses [the insurer] incurs” and “all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request to assist us in the investigation or defense of the claim or ‘suit.’” Crucially, under this language, if the insurer is not incurring the cost itself, such costs are to be incurred only at the insurer’s request. Before you incur them, consider how to present a compelling case to your insurer that these early costs are defense expenses. Evidence preservation will prevent spoliation claims. Site security will prevent people from entering an unsafe building and potentially becoming additional plaintiffs. If the insured can obtain coverage for these costs as defense expenses, the insurer will likely pay them.

The Importance of Planning Ahead

Ultimately, there are far too many risk transfer considerations at play after a catastrophic loss to highlight here. However, the most valuable actions a contractor can take to facilitate risk transfer after a catastrophic loss must take place far in advance through careful scrutiny of contract language, policy language and loss procedures. Any party facing a significant degree of responsibility for a catastrophic loss will be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of issues to address on a daily basis. It is imperative to keep the big picture in mind and institute a plan to maximize all of the available avenues of risk transfer available. Doing so can get the company through the aftermath of the loss with minimal out-of-pocket exposure. 

This article was featured in the June Issue of Risk Management Magazine.
Reprinted with permission from Risk Management Magazine. Copyright 2020 RIMS, Inc. All rights reserved.