- Сообщения: 5
- Зарегистрирован: 15 май 2018, 17:17
- Благодарил (а): 0 раз.
- Поблагодарили: 0 раз.
Ok to start off with yes I understand the claims efficiency, etc. that an OCIP brings to the table. My question is the credit that a subcontractor might give to an OCIP.If the General Contractor wants to have an AI status, the subcontractors insurance company limits are still at risk. So why shouldn't the subcontractors insurance company be paid for assuming that risk. Plus the OCIP has no coverage for the Subs tools, etc. that are on the job, there is not coverage for the milled products the sub brings to the job, etc. Most of the local agencies find the OCIP to be a PITA and everyone looses money except the OCIP provider. If it were not so you won't see attorneys promoting the idea of an OCIP and using headlines such as - "Potential Savings to the Owner".Then there is the accounting cost to the subcontractor. Example - cabinet and millwork in the shop. The subcontractor would need to assign only certain people to the manufacturing of the custom work and keep track of the payroll and separate the payroll for the workers manufacturing for that project. More money out of the subs hands.There is no savings to the subcontractor is it? It is all a shadow and possibly gaps of coverage. But hey derivatives were all cool until Goldman almost brought the economic world to its knees. Are OCIP the same animal, good looking for the certain few but a bad deal for many?
I didn't find the right solution from the internet.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/forums ... php?t=9874
Animated explainer video production service
Кто сейчас на конференции
Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 0