|
|
Enron Mail |
John:
I have reviewed the insurance article and would not mind recommending a few= =20 minor changes but respect your wishes not to. However, I did find a couple = of=20 places where it is definitely needed. After speaking with a few marine experts at Wortham I have found our Hull &= =20 P&I wording to be deficient [did this on another project]. I believe Clause= =20 19.1.4 should be changed to the following recommended wording. You are=20 welcome to change the limit [$10 million] but I think the wording is more= =20 appropriate for all agreements going forward. Hull & Machinery and Protection and Indemnity Insurance. Seller shall ensur= e=20 that if any owned or non-owned watercraft of any kind is used for performan= ce=20 of the Work, Hull & Machinery and Protection and Indemnity insurance shall = be=20 provided for the vessels in the amounts as follows: Hull & Machinery: Full current market value of the watercraft. Protection &Indemnity including excess collision liability [unless otherwis= e=20 provided by the hull coverage]: $10,000,000 each occurrence or the full current market value of the vessel,= =20 whichever is greater. Such insurance may be provided by the vessel operator or by Seller as Selle= r=20 deems appropriate. The aircraft clause needs a couple of changes: In Clause 19.1.6 insert =01&aircraft=018 after =01&non-owned=018 in the thi= rd line. Such insurance may be provided by the aircraft operator or by Seller as=20 Seller deems appropriate. Please let me know if you have any questions. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Rigby, John =20 Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 5:07 AM To: Marshall, David; Parrish, Paul E. Cc: Tweed, Sheila; Mann, Kay; Dieball, Scott Subject: GE- World Hunger David and Paul: As you are aware Sheila Tweed has been championing achieving a standardized= =20 turbine purchase agreement with GE for domestic applications. Attached is= =20 the current draft of such document. Please review the insurance provisions= =20 to see if there are any changes needed. I believe the current drafting is= =20 what we have used in the past. =20 Given the technology issues of late do we need to make any changes. This= =20 would be for 7FA and LM6000 applications which I believe the market views a= s=20 proven technology so I assume we will not need to shift collateral damage t= o=20 GE and expose GE to insurer subrogation. Scott Dieball and I are in London- Enron House. Today Tuesday our telephon= e=20 number is 44-207-783-0517. Please call at your earliest convenience so w= e=20 can discuss conceptually. I would prefer not to make drafting changes for the sake of style at this= =20 point. << File: GE Agreement - Version 4(jr).DOC <<
|