Knock for Knock
Discussion
Run major projects and we have a number of what are termed "cost variations". Some are levied upon us for "extras" we may ask for, whilst we may want to "charge" the supplier for example costs incurred due to their (in)actions
As grown ups we may go "knock for knock" ie write off or down certain items that we mutually agree are of similar contra values.
Enjoy dealing with grown-ups and decison makers at "knock for knock". The Quantity Surveyors are always amused when I undertake such a "nutty approach".
As grown ups we may go "knock for knock" ie write off or down certain items that we mutually agree are of similar contra values.
Enjoy dealing with grown-ups and decison makers at "knock for knock". The Quantity Surveyors are always amused when I undertake such a "nutty approach".
elanfan said:
Knock for knock WAS a term used where each insurer dealt with their own sides damage only. Doesn’t exist anymore.
This. Could end up with both parties losing NCB, one of them losing NCB or neither of them losing NCB depending on how their own insurance company saw fault.
KungFuPanda said:
48k said:
Knock for knock is an old school phrase which did used to mean each insurer takes care of their own insured party but these days people confuse it with 50-50 which is not the same thing.
Nail on the head. It pisses me off when people think it means 50-50.Knock-for-knock certainly does still exist as a concept, particularly in the construction and off-shore industries.
It boils down to each party agreeing to responsible for damage to their own property. I won't claim against you, if you don't claim against me etc.
It has probably been misappropriated in the context of private vehicle insurance, as mentioned above.
It boils down to each party agreeing to responsible for damage to their own property. I won't claim against you, if you don't claim against me etc.
It has probably been misappropriated in the context of private vehicle insurance, as mentioned above.
tinnitusjosh said:
Knock-for-knock certainly does still exist as a concept, particularly in the construction and off-shore industries.
It boils down to each party agreeing to responsible for damage to their own property. I won't claim against you, if you don't claim against me etc.
It has probably been misappropriated in the context of private vehicle insurance, as mentioned above.
This has other names as well in other contexts.- hold harmless agreements, waivers etc. It boils down to each party agreeing to responsible for damage to their own property. I won't claim against you, if you don't claim against me etc.
It has probably been misappropriated in the context of private vehicle insurance, as mentioned above.
The insurance company knock for knock agreements were supposed to save litigation costs but are largely a thing of the past for two reasons really- the main one being that they only worked fairly between insurers with equal ratios between third party and comprehensive covers. An insurer that mainly offered TP covers gained an advantage because kk agreements only applied to vehicle damage (AD)- so these insurers avoided paying TP AD claims but gave nothing away in return (because they didn't have any AD claims of their own).
The other reason is that nowadays insurers have to be more careful about anything which looks like a cartel- just makes agreements more difficult, although not impossible. My experience suggests that even talking to the competition over a pint gets your legal guys into a panic.
tinnitusjosh said:
Knock-for-knock certainly does still exist as a concept, particularly in the construction and off-shore industries.
It boils down to each party agreeing to responsible for damage to their own property. I won't claim against you, if you don't claim against me etc.
It has probably been misappropriated in the context of private vehicle insurance, as mentioned above.
Well I don't know when construction and off-shore industries started using that term, but it existed in the general insurance industry when I joined it in the late 70s. Maybe it has actually been misappropriated in those other industries? It boils down to each party agreeing to responsible for damage to their own property. I won't claim against you, if you don't claim against me etc.
It has probably been misappropriated in the context of private vehicle insurance, as mentioned above.
Because in motor insurance terms it was a formal, signed agreement between insurers that each would bear it's own costs - based on the concept that each time their policyholders had a collision, on the balance of probabilities it would be six of one and half a dozen of the other so would balance out over the course of time.
But in motor insurance terms it's long gone - and maybe for the best, although given the ineptitude of insurance claims staff these days keeping it going may have been a good idea! No decisions required.
Mr Tidy said:
Because in motor insurance terms it was a formal, signed agreement between insurers that each would bear it's own costs - based on the concept that each time their policyholders had a collision, on the balance of probabilities it would be six of one and half a dozen of the other so would balance out over the course of time.
It worked better in the 50s, 60s & 70s, when there were more large insurers like NU, GA, CU etc, all covering a spread of risks. But then you got the rise of smaller specialist young driver insurers, specialist female driver insurers etc. Which meant it was no longer equitable. Why would a specialist female driver insurer want a knock for knock agreement with a specialist young driver insurer, when 95% of the claims between their customers will be the fault of the young driver?
Mr Tidy said:
agreement between insurers that each would bear it's own costs
Yes, so basically what i described re. off-shore insurances. I didn't mean that it originated there, just that it remains extremely prevalent in that industry - mostly because of how complicated claims can be in respect of colliding vesselsForums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff