Construction Insurance Bulletin

OSHA is well aware of just how many injuries, both fatal and non-fatal, are associated with excavation/trenching. In fact, the Agency has been conducting a trenching initiative for the past several years. In an effort to lessen the number of excavation/trenching-related fatalities, OSHA designated a trench initiative team in 2003 to identify safety issues and to develop outreach materials. Although the Agency’s studies have shown that there has been a steady decline in fatalities, it is still continuing its outreach efforts to remind employers of the need for constant attention to prevent cave-in fatalities.

The trench task force enumerated a number of possible risks that employees might encounter while working in an excavation. However, there are five risks that are most often cited by OSHA inspectors when they examine a site:

1. Lack of adequate protective systems – OSHA Standard 1926.652(a)(1) requires that any excavation between 5 feet and 20 feet deep must have protective systems to prevent a cave-in. The acceptable forms of protective systems include:

• Shoring – These are timber, mechanical, or hydraulic systems that support the sides of an excavation.
• Sheeting – A system in which plates or shoring-grade plywood are driven into the ground to keep the earth in position.
• Shielding (also known as a trench box) – This protects the workers in the event of a cave-in. The box is placed in the trench and moved with the employees as the work in the trench progresses.
• Sloping – A method of cutting back trench walls at a steep enough angle so that a cave-in isn’t possible. The angle depends on the type of soil.
• Benching – This technique cuts into the sides of an excavation to form one or more horizontal steps.

2. Failure to make necessary on-site inspections – A competent person on-site must inspect the excavation, the surrounding areas, and all protective systems on a daily basis for indications that a cave-in might occur, protective systems might fail, or that other hazardous conditions are present. Inspections should be conducted prior to the start of workday and before the beginning of each shift. Inspections must also be made after an event that might increase the possibility of a cave-in, such as a rainstorm.

3. No adequate method of access and egress – Excavations/trenches that are 4 feet deep or more must have proper means of egress. OSHA has established the following guidelines:

• The means of egress must be positioned within 25 lateral feet of workers.
• A competent person must design structural ramps that are used solely for access or egress from excavations.
• When two or more components form a ramp or runway, they must be effectively connected to prevent displacement, and be of uniform thickness.
• Cleats or other means of connecting runway components must be attached in a way that would not cause tripping.
• Structural ramps used in place of steps must have a non-slip surface.
• Earthen ramps cannot be used as a means of egress unless a worker can walk them in an upright position, and a competent person has evaluated them.

4. Improper placement of spoil piles – These must be placed at least 2 feet back from the excavation to prevent debris falling into the site.

5. Failure to quickly evacuate at-risk employees – As soon as the competent person discovers an indication that a cave-in might occur, a protective system could fail, or that other hazardous conditions are present, exposed employees must be removed from the excavation until the necessary measures have been taken to make working in the area safe again.

A computer consultant is upgrading servers at a client’s site. While explaining a problem to one of the client’s employees, he gestures with one hand and knocks over a hot cup of coffee. The drink spills on the employee, causing a serious burn. The consultant reports the incident to his insurance agent, who submits a claim to the company providing his commercial general liability insurance. However, the company responds by denying coverage, citing a change attached to the policy. This change removes coverage for bodily injury arising out of the rendering of computer consulting services, advice or instruction by the policyholder. According to the company, the employee’s injury resulted from the computer consulting services.

The consultant’s policy contains this provision because losses “arising out of the rendering of computer consulting services” are more properly insured under a Professional Liability policy. The provision’s intent is to exclude coverage for losses resulting from errors in his professional judgment. However, its wording seems to support the insurance company’s contention that there is no coverage. The consultant argues that spilling a cup of coffee is something that could happen to anyone, not just someone providing professional services. What is the correct interpretation?

A Commercial General Liability policy insures the policyholder for bodily injury, property damage, and personal and advertising injury, caused by an occurrence taking place during the policy period, and for which the policyholder is liable. The policy takes this broad starting point and limits coverage with several provisions (called “exclusions”) that describe types of occurrences to which the insurance does not apply. The insurance company added a special exclusion to this policy so that it would not cover errors and omissions the consultant makes while acting in his professional capacity.

Unfortunately, if the consultant has purchased a Professional Liability policy, it might exclude coverage for losses involving bodily injury or property damage. Insurance companies write this provision into the policies in the belief that the CGL policy will cover these losses. The result is that the consultant might have no coverage under either policy for this incident. The company providing the CGL policy denies coverage because he was acting as a consultant at the time; the other company does not cover loss from injuries.

To reduce the chances of a situation like this occurring, professionals such as physicians, architects and engineers, and consultants should work closely with an insurance agent. The agent should explain any special changes to the CGL policy that eliminate coverage, such as professional liability exclusions. She will also review and explain the provisions of a Professional Liability policy. The consultant should ask how the two policies coordinate with each other, especially with regard to injury and property damage losses. The agent should have experience with the companies’ claim paying practices. She might know that a particular company is likely to deny injury claims under the CGL policy because of a professional liability exclusion.

The best way to avoid an uninsured loss like this is for the businessperson to become informed about exactly what he is buying with his insurance premium dollars. As an informed buyer, he can insist that the policies meet his needs. If a particular insurer cannot or will not do that, he has plenty of competitors to choose from.

Liability insurance can be a significant business expense; the last thing any business wants is a surprise gap in coverage at claim time. Contact us today to review your specific liability needs.

Construction is a high risk industry. Personal injuries and property damage occur frequently, and these events ultimately cost the contractor money. Many times such claims could be covered under a Contractor’s All Risk (CAR) policy.

CAR policies, commonly referred to as Course of Construction or Builder’s Risk policies, insure against physical loss or property damage to works, plant, equipment and materials during the course of construction. Such policies can be complicated so contractors should take care to ensure that any coverage adequately covers the risks of the construction project to be undertaken. Many contractors can be caught short by failing to evaluate their potential liability risks in relation to the policy they are considering.

Here are some important rules to evaluate CAR policies:

• Conduct an insurance audit with a risk manager or broker to determine potential liability and any risk not covered by your current policy.
• Consult with your broker because many insurers can customize the coverage to match the needs of the project. The insurer needs time to do this effectively, so don’t wait till the last minute.
• Take note of exclusions because while most are expressly stated, others can be implied and can radically limit your protection. One frequently implied exclusion is consequential loss relating to loss of profits and expenses as an indirect result of the cause of the claim. Naturally occurring events such as deterioration due to mildew, rust, or obsolescence may also be deemed as implied exclusions.
• Confirm there are no unusual limitations on the measure of damages. The method in which your insurance carrier determines damages can significantly affect your bottom line.
• Carefully consider the period of coverage as it normally only extends to when the contractor is on site and ceases when the client takes possession. Ensure there is extended coverage should problems develop later on.
• Technological changes using business information technology opens many contactors to new risks if they incorporate design management in the construction project. Additionally, construction companies which use BIM also have to consider potential losses due to hacking or data corruption that would not likely be covered under a CAR policy.
• Review the excesses and deductibles to be applied by your insurer to determine if they are reasonable.
• Fully document your damages with the aid of an experienced consultant, as CAR carriers will strive to reduce the cost of damages. Costs stemming from prolongation of the claim may be restricted to maximum excess limitations.
• Use a legal consultant especially when preparing a major claim. They can guide you through any potential red tape and aid in negotiating a proper settlement.

In December 2003, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) developed a set of medical protocols, backed by scientific findings, for the treatment of injured workers. Occupational medicine physicians and other specialists involved in the medical care of workers developed these guidelines to provide practitioners with:

• A step-by-step outline to assess the patient’s condition, and to educate the patient about that condition.
• Specific guidelines about what physical findings and/or test results are required to establish a diagnosis.
• A methodology for identifying the role psycho/social factors plays in a worker’s response to treatment.

The effectiveness of these guidelines was documented in a study titled Acceptance and Self-Reported Use of National Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines, published in the April 2000 issue of Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.

Ninety-five percent of those polled reported that the guidelines improved their practice in some manner. Fifty-two percent of physicians thought that guideline use decreased medical costs. Seventy-one percent reported that their care complied with the guidelines in 70% or more of their cases. The researchers concluded from their study that physicians’ attitudes toward the guidelines were positive and that reported compliance was high.

However, a 2006 study conducted by the National Commission of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) titled Workers Compensation vs. Group Health: A Comparison of Utilization, showed that compliance with ACOEM protocols had dropped considerably since 2000. In fact, the researchers uncovered significant growth in the number and mix of medical treatments practitioners provided compensation patients. The study, which compared 2001-2002 to 1996-1997, found that the number of treatments for all diagnoses increased 45%, except for injuries such as knee and leg sprains, which had increased as much as 80%.

But increased levels of treatment and unnecessary testing are just the tip of the iceberg. There are some other serious outcomes resulting from over utilization:

• The barrage of doctor’s visits, tests, prescriptions, therapy sessions, etc., convinces the employee that they are getting all of this treatment because they are seriously injured. The employee begins making emotional decisions, and overlooks their economic well being. This kind of response often results in lawsuits and the loss of a valuable employee.
• More narcotics are being prescribed as part of the treatment program, resulting in addiction among some employees.

Given these outcomes, it is incumbent upon employers to select a doctor who will follow evidence-based treatment protocols. The doctor should be in agreement with the ACOEM philosophy that it is important to return the injured employee to the workplace in the appropriate time, whether to their own job, or to a modified position.

The best way to find the right doctor is to talk to other local companies, asking if they use physicians who are specifically trained in occupational medicine. After you have found the right doctor, establish a line of communication. Be sure your doctor knows that their recommendations and restrictions will be respected. They should also be fully aware of the return-to-work possibilities that exist within your company so that they can make the appropriate decision for their patients.

A construction site is a dangerous place. Power tools, scrap wood and metal, heavy equipment — all of these can cause serious injury or property damage. Loss control efforts normally focus on prevention of accidents on job sites. However, the possibility of a loss that could drag a contractor into court does not end when the project is finished. The contractor’s work stays behind and can be the source of serious liability claims. Consider the following examples:

• Six months after a roofing contractor finishes work at a bank, melting snow enters through the roof and ruins several network servers.
• A railing installed by a metalworker collapses as a man leans against it. The man falls ten feet and suffers severe back injuries.
• An overhead door malfunctions and closes on top of a new pickup truck. The owner seeks recovery from the contractor who installed the door.

Loss prevention and proper insurance are just as important after the job is done as they are while work is in progress. Standard Liability insurance policies cover a contractor’s liability for injury or damage arising out of completed operations. The insurance company considers the contractor’s work to be complete when one of these first occurs:

• All the work required by the contract is complete;
• All the work to be done at a job site is complete (when the contract requires work at multiple job sites); or
• When the contractor’s work is put to its intended use by someone other than another contractor working on the same job site.

The company will provide the contractor with legal defense and pay for any settlement or judgment that results from accidents arising out of completed work. Of particular note, it will pay for the restoration, repair or replacement of any property made necessary because the contractor performed his work on it incorrectly. The company will not pay for such a loss while the job is still in progress, but it will pay after the work is completed.

For coverage to apply during a particular policy period, the injury or damage must first occur during that period. For example, assume that a siding contractor installed aluminum siding on a house. While making improvements several years later, the homeowner discovers extensive rotting of the plywood and joists inside the walls. A third party concludes that the interior damage resulted from faulty installation of the siding. Since the damage most likely began at the time of installation, the policy that was in effect at the time of the job will provide coverage. On the other hand, if a contractor builds a deck and it collapses 18 months later, injuring four people, the policy in effect at the time of the collapse will provide coverage, not the one in effect at the time of the job.

The insurance company will not pay for damage to the contractor’s own work if the damage arose out of the work. For example, if an electrical contractor’s faulty wiring fries a circuit board he installed, the insurance will not cover the damage. The insurance policy should not be confused with a warranty.

One important caveat is that a form covering a third party as an additional insured might not provide completed operations coverage for that party. The form most commonly used to add coverage for an additional insured no longer provides this coverage. A separate form has been created to address this gap in coverage. Since many construction contracts will require subcontractors to provide this coverage, subs should verify with their insurance agents that they have it.

By its nature, construction is dangerous work, and that danger continues to some extent long after the contractor has moved onto the next job. It is vital that contractors have appropriate completed operations insurance in place to protect them if something goes wrong.

For many businesses, Workers Compensation insurance is one of the largest expenses. A firm’s experience modification, which is a numeric factor that applies to the Workers Compensation premium, is a major influence on that cost. It is designed to reward firms that have below average loss activity and penalize those with above average activity. Firms with losses below average will have a mod of less than 1.0, while others with above average losses would have mods greater than 1.0. The insurance company multiplies this number by the calculated premium, producing either a reduced or increased premium. Firms with frequent, small losses fare worse under experience rating than those with infrequent, large losses. However, large losses and changes to the amounts reserved for them can still have a great impact.

In each state, a bureau independent of the insurance company calculates an eligible firm’s experience mod. The bureau uses a formula that considers the type of operation, the payroll over the previous three policy periods (not including the current one), the losses with values of less than $5,000 each, and the losses valued at more than $5,000. Through the application of mathematical factors, the formula determines the firm’s actual losses for the three-year period. The bureau divides this number by the expected losses for a firm in that classification with that amount of payroll. If actual losses exceed expected losses, the mod is greater than 1.0; the mod is less than 1.0 if the converse is true.

The formula values losses of less than $5,000 at full value. For example, a firm that had five losses totaling $10,400 would be charged that amount in the experience rating formula. However, a firm with one $10,400 loss would not be charged the full amount. The formula breaks this loss into two amounts — $5,000 plus some fraction of the amount in excess of that. The experience rating manual contains the factors that apply to the amount over $5,000, and they will vary by the firm’s expected losses. Factors are greater for firms with greater expected losses. Each state has a maximum amount for which any one loss can be valued, no matter what its actual size. For example, if a firm suffers a loss reserved at $900,000 and the state’s maximum single loss is $200,000, the formula will apply the factor only to $195,000 (the amount between $5,000 and $200,000).

A significant change in the amount reserved for a loss can have a dramatic effect on a firm’s experience mod. In the example above, if the reserve dropped from $900,000 to $100,000, the factor would now apply to $95,000 instead of $195,000. This would produce a major decrease in the formula’s calculation of actual losses, resulting in a big drop in the experience mod. Conversely, a loss reserve that jumped from $50,000 to $250,000 would produce a sizable increase in the calculated actual losses, as the factor is now applied to $195,000 rather than $45,000. This shows the importance of proper claims management. Lingering problems such as back injuries can result in large reserve increases if the injured worker does not receive effective medical treatment early on.

A good insurance agent will work with the firm to analyze the experience modification worksheet and verify its accuracy. The firm and its agent should inform the insurance company of any errors in reported losses or payroll. Also, the firm should question an unusually large decrease in a reserve and appeal to have its mod reduced. A properly calculated experience mod should neither over-reward nor under-penalize a firm for its loss experience.

Most construction contracts require one party to name the other party as an additional insured under the first party’s General Liability insurance policy. For example, a contract between a project owner and the general contractor will require the GC to cover the owner as additional insured. A contract between a GC and a subcontractor will have a similar requirement in favor of the GC. By making this requirement, the owner or GC is attempting to transfer the liability insurance responsibility from itself to the other party. However, what the GC is trying to achieve and what it actually gets might not be the same.

Many owners and subcontractors, when they require Additional Insured coverage, are seeking coverage that an obsolete insurance form used to provide. This form covered the person or organization listed on it for liability arising out of the policyholder’s work for the person or organization. The industry has revised this form several times over the years. The current version covers the named person or organization for liability arising at least partly out of the policyholder’s acts or omissions or those of subcontractors working for the policyholder. It covers liability for the policyholder’s ongoing operations for the additional insured. Coverage ends when all work on the project is completed or the part the policyholder was working on is put to its intended use.

The modern version has some significant differences from the old one. Courts interpreted the old version as covering the additional insured even when the accident was 100% its own fault. The new version requires the policyholder to be at least partly responsible. The old version covered liability arising out of the policyholder’s work, whenever it occurred. The new version covers liability arising out of the policyholder’s work only while it is in progress. It does not provide any coverage for liability arising out of the work once it is complete.

Contractors who need or want coverage for additional insureds arising out of their completed operations must request a separate coverage form from the insurance company. Willingness to provide this coverage varies from one insurance company to another.

Another option is to cover all additional insureds automatically. Many insurance companies offer this, but the form ordinarily applies only when a written contract requires the policyholder to add the additional insured. Also, it usually does not provide completed operations coverage for the additional insureds, and it might provide only the amount of coverage the contract requires even if the policy actually provides more. The contractor must request to add completed operations coverage separately for each additional insured.

It is important to note that none of these forms promise to provide the additional insured with advance notice if the company decides to cancel the policy. Owners and GCs often require advance notice in the contract. If this is the case, the contractor should discuss it with his insurance agent and ask to have this provision added to the policy separately. Insurance companies’ willingness to do this varies.

An owner or GC that requires its contractor to add it as an additional insured might expect or demand coverage for all operations, both ongoing and completed. They may also require advance notice of cancellation. It is crucial for contractors to be aware of what their policies do and do not provide. The contractor should discuss any coverage deficiencies with his agent as soon as he discovers them. If the insurance company is unwilling to remedy them, he may have to negotiate with the other party. The worst possible outcome is for the other party to be surprised by lack of coverage when an accident happens.

Contact our office today. We can help you to negotiate the Additional Insured maze.

When organizational behavior specialists talk about “corporate culture,” they are often referring to the set of unwritten rules that influences the attitudes and actions of the members of an organization and that guide their behavior. An organization develops its culture as a long-term coping mechanism for problems that are inherent in its operations.

However, when daily problems appear, organizations make immediate alterations within their culture to respond to these situations. These alterations, known as “climate changes,” signal a change in the level of interest and importance placed on a particular aspect of operations by the organization’s leadership. Unlike culture, which is embedded in the corporate psyche, climate changes only last for a short duration.

One very good example of changing climate is the level of emphasis placed on safety at different times during an organization’s life span. Shortly after an incidence of injury, management puts extra emphasis on safety. This generally lasts until the incident that triggered the response is forgotten, and then the climate gradually shifts back to a more lackadaisical attitude toward safety.

When an organization allows safety to be subject to climate changes instead of making it part of the culture, serious injuries and even fatalities can result. Management’s goal should be to create an environment where injuries are not acceptable and where all members of the organization work to prevent them. Changing the focus from a temporary emphasis on safety procedures to one of continuous improvement will help an organization sustain longer periods without injury.

The first step toward achieving this objective is for senior management to accept ownership of the procedures and processes that will lead to the desired safety outcome of becoming injury free. Leaders are not only responsible for developing safety procedures, but also for ensuring that they work as expected. Keep in mind that development is not done in a vacuum. Senior management must have input from the supervisors and staff who perform the operations in order for them to be effective.

Ownership also includes maintaining the commitment to safety from mid-level managers and supervisors, and paying attention to how well new hazards are being documented and brought to senior management’s attention. Leaders who accept responsibility for safety performance also monitor the factors that influence cultural acceptance, such employees’ level of trust in management, the effectiveness of communication between management and employees, and management’s credibility.

The second step toward achieving the desired safety outcome is to obtain employee buy-in. Start by listening to the way employees describe performance issues and problems. If their statements express the beliefs that achieving an injury-free culture is outside their control or it is someone else’s responsibility, then there are serious barriers that can prevent incorporating the goal into the culture.

Overcoming these obstacles starts when employees are brought into the development process. Once employees have ownership of the new procedures, they no longer feel that creating an injury-free workplace is beyond their control. Making them part of this process also puts responsibility for its success in their hands.

To maintain employee commitment, however, there has to be continual motivation, such as incentives, that keeps employees enthusiastic about the need for ongoing improvement.

Contractual risk transfer is an indispensable part of any construction risk management program; and the primary goal of effective contractual risk transfer is to place the financial consequences of a loss on the party best able to control and avoid the possibility of injury or damage, without violating statute or creating an “unconscionable” contract (defined as a contract that is unreasonable due to the unequal bargaining strength of the parties, or the result of undue influence or unfair tactics). Two key elements necessary to effectively accomplish this goal are: 1) a strong “Indemnification Agreement” within the construction contract; and 2) assurance that the entity to which the financial responsibility is being transferred has ample financial means to protect each party to the contract, either by sufficient financial reserves or adequate amounts of insurance.

The indemnification agreement is the heart of contractual risk transfer. Such an agreement may read, in some form, as follows: “For and in exchange for fair and equitable consideration, the “Transferee” (the sub-contractor, sub-subcontractor, etc.) agrees to indemnify and hold harmless “transferor” (the GC, owner, project manager, etc) for and from any and all loss or cost arising in whole or in part from the “transferee’s” negligence, or wrongful act.” “Indemnification” shields the transferor from the financial consequences of the loss and the “Hold Harmless” wording protects the transferor against the legal process that may result from an injury.

Indemnification agreements, in whatever form, are not affected by, nor do they directly affect the insurance coverage; they are purely contractual requirements. But beyond the indemnification agreement, and in order for contractual risk transfer to accomplish its stated goal, the entity to which the financial consequences are being transferred (the “transferee”) must extend some level of financial protection to the “transferor.” This can be accomplished by naming the transferor as Additional Insured, and by use of a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of the transferor.

Requiring the transferee name the transferor as an “Additional Insured” is recommended and a generally accepted contractual insurance requirement. Being named as an additional insured satisfies two necessities of effective contractual risk transfer for the transferor: 1) the transferor is defended against and financially protected for the negligent acts of the transferee by the transferee’s insurance carrier; and 2) the transferor is insulated, except in rare circumstances, against the subrogation rights of the insurance company.

Construction contracts can and often do require the transferee endorse a “Waiver of Subrogation” in favor of the transferor onto the insurance policy. However, insurance carriers may refuse this request for reasons outside the scope of this article. The waiver of subrogation endorsement is not absolutely necessary – if the indemnification agreement is written to include such waiver, and the additional insured requirements are met.

Subrogation rights flow from the injured party’s right to subrogate. If the subcontractor’s right to subrogate is waived by contract prior to a loss, the insurance carrier has no right to subrogate. The indemnification agreement should include provisions waiving the subcontractor’s right to subrogate; this waiver may need to be included as a separate paragraph in the contract, depending on how a particular state’s statute addresses the breadth of indemnification allowed.

Properly drawn construction contracts delineate the contractual risk transfer responsibilities of the contracting parties. However, no single article can anticipate every individual need or answer every question regarding contractual risk transfer. Outside expertise is necessary when developing a contractual risk management program or when responding to one as the transferee.

The link between project design and construction job site safety is a concept that is being widely explored. In July 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) hosted the first Prevention through Design workshop as a prelude to a national effort to eliminate occupational hazards and control risks to workers early on in a construction project.

OSHA is also taking part in this effort. It has formed a partnership with the American Society of Civil Engineers to promote safety through design. Their Design for Safety workgroup has developed a number of instructional presentations outlining how to achieve this objective. They also maintain a Web site at www.designforconstructionsafety.org.

These efforts are the result of some prominent academic research. In a 2006 study titled An Analysis of Construction Accidents from a Design Perspective, researcher Michael Behm, Assistant Professor in the Occupational Safety Program at East Carolina University, analyzed 450 reports of construction workers’ deaths and disabling injuries obtained from OSHA and NIOSH. His purpose was to determine if a proactive approach to safety in project design could have prevented the incidents. What he discovered was that in 151 cases, the hazard that precipitated the incident could have been eliminated or reduced if designing for safety measures had been incorporated into the plan.

When project designers use a designing for safety approach, they address features of a project that impact on construction worker safety. Examples of this in Behm’s study include deigning parapet walls to be at least 42 inches high, which act as a guardrail to prevent workers from falling; alerting construction company management to the safety hazards at the work site; and noting on contract drawings of the location of existing overhead power lines.

Designing for safety is a natural outcome of the Hierarchy of Controls methodology used by safety professionals. This approach focuses on finding ways that are inherent in the project itself to reduce or eliminate workplace hazards before relying on external factors, such as personal protective equipment or administrative controls. Practitioners of the Hierarchy of Controls philosophy believe that waiting until construction begins substantially limits your risk abatement options to those that provide the lowest amount of protection.

As of a result of his research, Behm made the following recommendations:

• The construction industry should implement the concept of designing for construction safety as a standard practice to reduce safety risks. However, implementing the design-for-safety concept is only one element in a systems approach for preventing injuries and deaths among construction workers. The contractor must continue to play a critical role in ensuring worker safety and must adhere to the design-for-safety specifications.
• Designers should include fall protection in specifications for roofs, skylights, and structural steel construction.
• Designers should include barriers and other measures that prevent contact with electrical and other utilities.
• Designers should consider incorporating design-for-safety measures in all types of projects, including residential, commercial, and industrial, as well as new projects, renovations, and demolitions.
• Root-cause accident analysis and other accident investigations should routinely consider whether design-for-safety modifications could have prevented the incident. As safety professionals demonstrate the link between the design-for-safety concept and construction incidents, they will drive its implementation as a method to reduce overall project risk.