Close this search box.

Why commercial insureds should direct Master Service Agreements

ruck (15)

Why commercial insureds should direct Master Service Agreements

Taking time to secure high-quality vendors via an insured-directed MSA fosters better disaster-recovery outcomes.

Over the years, I have been surprised by how many companies will direct and negotiate vendor contracts but take a more passive role when it comes to disaster recovery services.

Companies sign recovery-contractor agreements on either a per-job basis or with a Master Service Agreement (MSA). It makes little sense that a building owner would not direct these contracts themselves. There are many reasons for an insured to do this, which I will demonstrate below.

Drafting your own agreement

Contract language tends to benefit the originator in everything from payment terms and penalties to venue, applicable laws, qualifications, insurance types and insurance amounts. For this reasons, owners should be the ones directing MSAs. For any company currently in the habit of signing the contractor’s agreement, now is a good time to draft your own.

Start with a thorough review of the contractor’s rate sheet and terms. Review before your next emergency need and not when you urgently require the services of these vendors. In plainer words, do it now. Get expert advice as you do this. Seek assistance from your adjuster, insurance broker and project management company who are all familiar with and/or have experience with these rate sheets and contracts.

There may be some rates or terms that are not suitable. Language can be added to an MSA that supersedes contractor rate-sheet language with more acceptable terminology. If there are terms you don’t agree with and the vendor will not change, find another vendor. Any contractor who has trouble with an owner directed MSA, comparing rates and requiring more openness and transparency, should be questioned. Make your life easier as there are plenty of contractors willing to work with you.

Managing terms, rates

As you do this, ensure fairness to the contractor and do not ask for unreasonable terms. It is good to remember that disaster-recovery contractors are prepared, trained and staffed to provide you with services for a job that they can never fully anticipate. They should be ready to respond and perform. But they’re not banks. Keep that in mind as you draft an agreement.

You want to do all you can to mitigate difficult invoice and payment negotiations that often take place at the end of a project by preparing before you need those services. It starts with a clean MSA.

Here are some key items to examine when reviewing rate sheets:

  • Overall rates as compared to the general market;
  • Surcharge types, amounts and durations;
  • Exclusions of support materials that will be provided by the contractor;
  • Weekly and monthly discounts on items provided, subcontracted or rented by the contractor that should also benefit you; and
  • Stand-by time and travel charges.

More things to review

Any or all of the above-mentioned recovery professionals can help you with this. Long-term relationships with good vendors will be improved as more clarity is added to what is expected of them. This will also improve interactions with your adjuster team when it comes time to settle the claim.

For the non-insurance projects employing the same contractors, this will help protect you and deliver more performance consistency.

Good vendors will welcome your direction and should not have a problem with greater transparency in the process. Preparing for and taking the time to have quality vendors working under your terms will go a long way in achieving better outcomes in your disaster-recovery projects in terms of cost, time and peace-of-mind. Do it now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts


Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote