In light of recent far-right violence across the UK, construction sites face potential risks not covered by standard insurance policies.
- A lawyer highlights that many contractors’ all-risk insurance policies exclude damages caused by ‘malicious persons’, potentially encompassing riot acts.
- Contractors are advised to review their insurance terms, especially regarding exclusions for intentional and political violence.
- The distinction between riots and other forms of civil commotion can influence insurance claims and coverage.
- Police anticipate further demonstrations, increasing concerns for construction site safety.
The recent surge of far-right violence across the UK has sparked concerns within the construction industry regarding the adequacy of insurance coverage. As the unrest unfolds, Joanna Grant, a managing partner at Fenchurch Law, has warned that many contractors may find their insurance policies lacking when it comes to protecting against riot damage. This concern stems from the fact that several contractors’ all-risk (CAR) insurance policies explicitly exclude damage caused by ‘malicious persons’. Such a category could arguably encompass the acts of rioters, leaving sites vulnerable.
This predicament raises significant alarms for contractors, especially as more demonstrations are anticipated over the weekend. Contractors are strongly urged to scrutinise their existing insurance policies to understand the terms related to riot and intentional damage. Joanna Grant has highlighted an additional layer of complexity: many CAR policies may also contain terrorism exclusions, which could impede claims for property damage linked to politically motivated violence.
Grant elucidates the challenges in defining the fine line between a riot and other disturbances. The nuances of such definitions could heavily influence insurance claims and the extent of coverage available. She points out that this ambiguity might lead to contentious discussions on whether current riots qualify as civil commotions, which are frequently covered by insurance.
Another critical point raised is the procedural requirement for filing claims related to riot damage. Joanna Grant advises contractors to adhere diligently to insurance protocols, which often require that any riot-induced damage be duly reported to law enforcement as a prerequisite for claims. Failure to comply with such requirements could result in the invalidation of potential compensation claims.
In scenarios where insurance fails to provide compensation, contractors might seek relief under the 2016 Riot Compensation Act. However, Grant notes that this act solely covers damage to property, excluding compensation for any project delays. This limitation underscores the importance of comprehensive risk assessment and preparedness amidst the current unrest.
The catalyst for this wave of violence was a vigil in Southport, organised in memory of three children tragically killed at a dance class. Misinformation about their attacker circulated on social media, igniting widespread unrest across various cities. To date, approximately 500 individuals have been apprehended, highlighting the scale and severity of these demonstrations. Despite the turmoil, some affected sites, such as Esh Construction’s housing scheme in Middlesborough, report minimal disruptions to project timelines.
Given these developments, it is imperative for contractors to evaluate their insurance policies closely to ensure adequate protection against possible riot-induced damages.
