Risks of damage and insurance for the design and consulting industry – see examples of insurance for your industry

Due to the insufficient electrical design, the parish incurred additional costs for extra electrical and construction work. The biggest individual cost consisted of the new space designed and built in the main building. The contract between the policyholder and the parish had not specified the consultant’s maximum indemnification liability. Therefore, the upper limit for indemnification liability was, as stated in the KSE contract terms, the consultant’s fee.

The amount of the loss was lower than the consultant’s fee, so the policyholder indemnified the parish for the entire loss. The expenses caused by the loss were indemnified under the Professional Indemnity Insurance, less the deductible.

The secondary trusses of the building’s roof adjoining the exterior walls were designed to be too long during prefabrication planning, which was part of the design assignment. Many of the trusses had to be shortened either at the site or already at the factory before transport to the site. This repair work and extra costs to the customer resulted in losses in excess of EUR 10,000 to the customer. The design fee was EUR 8,500.

Although the designer and customer did not apply KSE terms and conditions, compensation was paid to the same extent as if the consultant had been liable under these terms and conditions, that is, up to the maximum amount specifically agreed in the contract or in the absence of such a provision, up to the fee amount. On the basis of the Professional Indemnity Insurance, compensation was made to EUR 8,500.

Before the incident, A had performed miscellaneous work for B, in connection with which A had deactivated backup copying. As a result of this, the system data for the last two days could not be restored after B’s IT system crashed. According to A, they should have informed the customer that backup copying had been deactivated, but for some reason this had not been done.

B was of the opinion that A was liable for the resulting extra costs, overtime and interruption of operations. B claimed compensation from A for the aforementioned costs, as well as the related investigation and legal expenses. A denied its liability and stated that its contractual obligations did not include the maintenance and servicing of B’s applications and servers in the extent proposed by B. IT2010 General Terms and Conditions were applied to the service agreement. In addition, a licence agreement for the software application had been concluded between A and B.

B was of the opinion that, based on the separate agreement, A’s liability for the loss was more extensive than that based on the IT2010 General Terms and Conditions. A settlement was reached in the matter after negotiations, and we compensated the agreed part of the loss, less the deductible.

We covered the loss from the supervisor’s general liability insurance, minus the deductible.