Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. Why does a project-wide policy remove the liability war between the parties?
Because an insurer does not turn against its own insured: the waiver of subrogation is the mechanism of the structure, not a favor
The waiver follows necessarily from putting everyone on the same contract, and nobody negotiates it as a goodwill clause: the insurer that pays cannot turn against the party it insures, and the liability war loses its object. Grasping that changes how a project-wide policy is read, since its price precisely reflects that abandoned recourse. The answer seeing a general contractual bar goes too far, as the next question shows: actions between parties survive on what the policy does not pay.
Glossary entry →2. The insurer has paid and waived recourse against the responsible subcontractor. What remains in play between the parties?
The deductible and delay penalties, under the works contract: the waiver operates only between named insureds and extinguishes only the subrogated action
What remains in play is exactly what the policy does not pay, and those heads are not small on a large project: a deductible runs into hundreds of thousands, penalties into contract points. Two limits on the waiver are worth retaining together: it operates only between named insureds, so a supplier off the list stays actionable, and it extinguishes only the insurer's recourse, leaving contractual actions intact. The answer putting the deductible automatically on the policyholder anticipates the next question and gets it wrong: that depends on a clause in the works contract.
Glossary entry →3. The works contract puts the deductible on the responsible contractor. The damage comes from a supplier not on the schedule of insureds. Who bears the deductible?
Whoever placed the policy: the clause says nothing about the case where the responsible party is not an insured, and it then falls back on them
The clause was written with construction contractors in mind and works perfectly while the responsible party is one: it provides nothing for a supplier off the list, and a drafting silence always leaves the burden where it fell, with the policyholder. The useful step is upstream, when drawing up the schedule of insureds, and consists in reading that schedule against the deductible clause rather than separately. Pursuing the supplier remains possible, as the previous question indicates, but that is a recourse to run and not a burden avoided.
Glossary entry →4. Where does the most frequent gap in a project-wide structure sit?
At the scope boundaries, and off-site storage is the most frequent case: on a defined site, out of transit, with no declared address
The three conditions combine and each looks harmless: the policy covers a site, transit cover has ended, and the rented warehouse was never declared. The property is then nowhere, with no exclusion written and no fault committed. The other answers name real difficulties, but ones bearing on the measure of an acquired cover; here the question is whether there is one, and that is what makes the scope boundary the subject to handle first.
Glossary entry →5. With separate policies rather than a project-wide one, what costs the owner most?
The delay: nobody advances funds while it is unknown who must pay, and the site waits meanwhile
The sharing does eventually happen, and roughly correctly; what cannot be recovered is the time during which nobody funds the repair, and on a site that time is paid in days of delay, idle crews and sometimes a delay cover that does not respond. That is why a project-wide policy is bought for speed as much as for cover. The other answers name real and bounded costs, quantifiable in advance, whereas delay is precisely the cost nobody quantifies when choosing the structure.
Glossary entry →