Picking apart claims turns up the same thing again and again: the problem didn't start at claim time, it started at inception. The seven mistakes below are responsible for most disputed cases – and every one of them can be prevented with a careful inception round. Treat this article as a pre-inception due-diligence list.
- The classic seven: late inception, existing property left out, under-valuation, missing maintenance cover, a disorganised chain, unworkable requirements, a forgotten extension.
- Their common root: the policy wasn't tailored to the project's reality.
- The defence isn't rocket science: a needs assessment that asks everything, plus a maintenance routine.
1–2: Mistakes of timing
Late inception: work starts, the policy is "in progress" – the first week's losses go uncovered, because there's no retroactive cover: inception article. Forgotten extension: the project slips, the policy expires, nobody says a word – the quietest mistake there is, because nothing flags it while things carry on: change notification.
3–4: Mistakes of value
Existing property left out: on a refurbishment or extension, the biggest risk – the existing building – is left without cover: existing property article. Under-valued project: the "let's round down, it'll be cheaper" logic brings a proportional settlement at claim time: sum insured article. Both come down to the inception round's five basic questions: what, how much, where, when, with whom.
5–6: Mistakes of structure
Disorganised chain: the subcontractors are neither clearly in nor clearly out – nobody knows who the policy covers, and a loss sets off a chain reaction of recourse: chain article. Missing maintenance cover: it only comes to light after handover that call-backs are running with no cover – and by then it can no longer be added: maintenance cover article.
7: The unworkable requirement
The policy requires a night watchman, the project works with cameras; it asks for enclosed storage, the site has an open laydown area. The cover is strong on paper and empty on site – and that comes to light at claim time: reasons for rejection. The defence: at inception, the wording's requirements have to be checked against how the project actually operates – and either the way of working has to be adjusted, or the wording renegotiated. That's exactly the work of structuring cover: needs-assessment article, and for a reality check there's the two-minute self-check.
A question tailored to your own project? Book a free 20-minute project consultation →
