Expert advice in minutes not days. Register it's free and ask your first question now.
ReachBack is a free community help desk for construction professionals run by Built Intelligence. A library of high-quality questions from real users with answers delivered and curated by industry experts.

Do you want to update your skills in NEC3, NEC4, JCT, Procurement, CDM or Project management?

Sign up for one of our free online courses.

4,714 questions

4,999 answers


Register its Free

Download here

NEC4 ECC: Difference between additional Employer's Risk and additional compensation event

0 votes
NEC4 now allows the Client to add additional compensation events in contract data part 1 section 6 (i.e. not something the Contractor has to allow risk for). There is also space to add "additional Client Liabilities" in section 8.

What is the difference between the two? If I as a Client made discovery of asbestos an additional compensation event, or instead made it an "additional Client liability" - what difference does it make?
asked Sep 5 in Compensation Events by anonymous (1,960 points)  

1 Answer

+1 vote
Best answer
I quote from Richard Patterson's article (with his permission) in the NEC User's Group Newsletter of October 2007 (issue No. 40) :

"If an ‘Employer’s risk’ (clause 80.1) occurs, the event is a compensation event and the contractor should be compensated for any effect of the event on both time and on the defined cost of providing the works. Also, because of clause 83.1, the employer indemnifies the contractor against the effect of that event.

As an example one might add, via option Z (additional conditions of contract), a compensation event for a particular level of flooding on a river. If the flood happens, the compensation event would protect the contractor against the time and cost effects of the event of providing the works. If the flood event was included instead as an ‘additional Employer’s risk’ (by including it in the space provided in the contract data), the contractor would also be indemnified by the employer against the cost of the damage done by the contractor’s plant as it was washed down the river."
answered Sep 6 by Jon Broome (49,010 points)  
selected Sep 6 by Glenn Hide