Griffis, F H and Christodoulou, S (2000) Construction risk analysis tool for determining liquidated damages insurance premiums: Case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(6), pp. 407-413. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Construction work is often a risky undertaking for all parties involved, and risk management is essential in dealing with potential exposures. One of the possible options in any risk management approach is the shifting of designated potential risks to financially strong institutions, which, for an agreed premium amount, are willing to assume the financial responsibility for any loss incurred. This paper presents a case study and a methodology for determining the expected loss to an insurance company when insuring for liquidated damages. It is directed to engineers and construction managers faced with providing a surety or owner with a quantification of the risk associated with a project completion date.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | engineer, liquidated damages, risk management, construction manager, methodology, quantification, case study, owner, exposure, insurance, option, construction work, risk analysis, surety |
| Subjects: | public and environmental health, measurement and scaling, economic analysis, sociology, decision analysis, research methods, environmental hazards, operations management, risk assessment, profession, contractual remedy, warranties, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here