CIAK, general insurance question

Your right Mike. Don't understand it either. Legalize. Lawyers understand I'm not a lawyer . However I was asked once back in the day to remove it if I wanted the job. The explanation I got was from the corporate lawyer that it held me harmless .>>>

CIAK,

I was with you, following along quite nicely, until that last CAPS PARAGRAPH.

I need an interpreter.

Thanks for the efforts so far. I'll let you know how it goes in the morning and if we need any more information.

As always, I will quite pleasant. I honestly don't think the owner has made contact with their insurance company, while claiming that they said "It's the contractor's responsibility". I would think that a carrier worth their salt would have made some form of contact with us.>>>

I thought about this a little more. Not that it changes anything . There are many interpretations of policies and what they mean. I think that mat be another reason it appears that things are not on the up and up when a difficulty arises. That being said I haven't looked on the back of one of my contracts in awhile here I believe is what my take of it is. IN NO EVENT, WHETHER OCCASIONED BY A BREACH OF WARRANTY CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT, OR BY ANY OTHER CAUSE WHETHER BASED UPON OR SOUNDING IN CONTRACTR TORT NEGLIGENCE STRICT LIABILITY WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT WARRANTY ( EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED)OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE WORK AND SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE SHALL CONTRACTOR BE LIABLE FOR OR OBLIGATED IN ANY MANNER FOR SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIOA OR INDIRECT DAMAGEDS INCLUDING BY WAY OF ECAMPLE BUT NOT BY WAY OF LIMITATION SUCH DAMAGES AS LOSS OF USE LOSS OF PROFITS OR SUITS BY THIRD PARTIES>>>

You have a real point there. The legal side is by the look of it and from the story told not a problem. Where as with the other side from the people causing the problems ? Poignant egg.>>>

The legal side is one thing, but the really upsetting part is that the owner probably considers himself the innocent victim of a dispute between you and the vandals which could have some unpleasant non-legal ramifications if not handled well. Aside from suddenly needing a night watchman and/or a private detective, I wonder what else might be needed to keep the lid on if general business prospects don't improve for the vindictive competitors.>>>

that really stinks Mike. I can't see how you or your crew could possibly be at fault. I feel the pain of the owner of the roof But come on it was done by vandals it's there insurance that has to pay. Maybe working closely with there insurance adjuster to get the most for them would be helpful?>>>

Mike. The hold harmless clause sums it up. I have had no personal experience with something like this . I have been in meetings where this subject has come up and the hold harmless clause has been the pivot point. A call to a known and trusted lawyer , yes they do exist would be my next council if it becomes a sticking point . Lien the property if you haven't already make sure the suppliers do the same. For anyone who doesn't have a hold harmless clause in their contracts ......do it. I will continue to check it out with the inside legal people I know and trust if you want. I can only give you my personal opinions on this . If it turns legal I might have to tune out with the Internet, If you want I can be reached by phone . A lot more private if you know what I mean. I'm sorry if I'm not totally responsive I'm on my own case also. It is not that I don't care I do. If you can be patience I'll will do my best to help.>>>