Such a code was drawn up for the tunnelling industry a few years ago: “Tunnelling losses in the insurance market had become such a big issue that the market reached the point where it was considering withdrawing professional cover for this type of risk,” he says. “Better returns could be had on capital applied to projects with a little bit more certainty. 

“As a consequence, insurers sat down with the British Tunnelling Society to develop a code of practice for tunnelling construction that gave insurers a level of comfort.

“Port and harbour projects are right up there too – not quite as disastrous, but not good. It scares underwriters and there has been some discussion about putting together a similar code of practice for wet works.”

Insurance could be provided on condition that the code of practice must be complied with. Insurers would have the right to go on site and ensure that the code is being applied. If not, cover could be withdrawn. 

The contents of such a code would include a large element of common sense, he says: “But people have to be told. It is amazing how people try to cut corners.”

A positive move for the industry, says Mr Wylie, has been the trend towards partnership contracting and away from the traditional client/contractor relationship where the client says “I am not going to give much information but you will give a price and you will take on all the risk”.

“The typical client didn’t know much about the project and gave vague specifications,” he says. “This approach left a lot of room for error, particularly if it was not clear whether the client was looking for quality or price. The whole idea of a code of practice and of the construction industry moving towards the partnership approach is that there is more certainty for all the partners in terms of capability, value for money and control. 

“The client has to buy into the code of practice and have accountability, including providing a minimum level of information. Partners are sharing the risk – everybody has to buy into the project’s success.”

While construction is generally one of the worst areas for death and injuries to employees, third party liability is also an important issue, Mr Wylie emphasises.

“Perhaps there are operators or businesses next door. There are visitors to the site – all sorts of parties, for all sorts of reasons. Most construction sites should have an onsite safety manager, for example, but that depends on the country, because standards and attitudes vary.”

Third party liabilities to consider include shipping and other marine craft using existing or nearby facilities, says Antonia Simpson at Marsh. Port buildings and warehouses, cargo or handling plant in the vicinity are also key risks, as well as underground services, including cables on the seabed.