Tammy Pike

CPCU, AU, ARM, AIM, AMIM

GROUP INSURANCE MANAGER

KIEWIT CORPORATION

Kiewit Corporation

• More than 125 years of construction excellence

• Operations throughout North America

• Experienced and dedicated management team

• Emphasis on safety and quality

Infrastructure

50%

Industrial

39%

Building

7%

Mining

4%

Kiewit Today

2011 Revenues

Strength as a Recognized Leader

• 2011 FORTUNE 500 company

• Engineering News-Record –

Top 10 Contractor since 1995

• 2011 ENR Rankings

• 3rd Overall

• 1st Domestic Heavy

• 2nd Transportation

• 4th Power

• 4th By New Contracts

• 9th Industrial Process/Petro

• 6th Working Abroad

• 37th Domestic General Building

Kiewit Today

Workmanship Exclusion – The Contractor Perspective

• What language do we usually see?

• What challenges do we face with such

language?

• What language do we want to see?

What language do we usually see?

What language do we usually see?

(H) Cost of making good faulty or

defective workmanship or material,

but this exclusion shall not

apply to physical damage resulting

there from;

Challenges with the language

• What is “ensuing” / “resulting”

damage?

• What is “damage”?

Challenges with the language

• Application of the exclusion to an entire operation

Challenges with the language

• When is the exclusion applicable?

What language do we want / expect to see

Good - LEG2 or equivalent

Better - LEG3 or equivalent

Or (Best)….we’ll take the

broadest language possible!

Conclusion

• Quality Assurance and Quality Control is the Contractor’s responsibility and risk…However…

• Biggest risk is not perils, but consequences of mistakes

• Managing and transferring risk is our goal

• Broadest language and consistent application = GOAL!