|
|
Enron Mail |
John:
The changes I suggested on the watercraft wording are still being reviewed= =20 for completeness. I think what I gave you will work for most situations whe= re=20 the watercraft is incidental to the work or is far removed from our being= =20 involved [contractor to sub to sub contractor] but it does not address ever= y=20 situation that we could be involved in. We may need to expand our wording= =20 accordingly. Likewise, your question on giving to the turbine venders the waiver of=20 subrogation and additional insured is an even bigger concern. You are askin= g=20 us to obligate ourselves in providing waiver and additional insured status = to=20 GE which we cannot do. As you know, we went many years with providing=20 turbine venders protection under the insurance because the market was soft= =20 and underwriters agreed to it. Now they balk at giving it because of the=20 losses they have incurred and we cannot predict what they will agree to. It= =20 does not matter if the machines are proto-type or not, there is a good chan= ce=20 right now that they will not agree to insuring the vender. Everyone says it= =20 only takes money and in many cases we could probably include venders on the= =20 insurance but I cannot recommend committing to it in a long term contract = =01)=20 we have to arrange the insurance at the time we need it in order to determi= ne=20 if it is available.=20 If you need to have some language in the agreement, I would recommend that = we=20 not give the waive and additional insured to GE or any vender. When we need= =20 the insurance and begin placing it, we can then determine if the underwrite= r=20 will cover the vender and ask for a price reduction from GE to move their= =20 risk to the underwriter. I am sorry I cannot make this easier but that is the nature of the insuranc= e=20 beast. Paul
|