We use cookies for analytics to improve your experience. Privacy Policy
Insurance is a promise to pay. The question is whether the promise survives contact with the policy wording, the conditions precedent, and the insurer's claims-handling strategy.
GCC insurance premium volume exceeded USD 30 billion in 2024, with construction insurance and D&O coverage growing at 15–20% annually as regulatory enforcement and megaproject activity create demand for higher limits and broader coverage.
CAR and TPL policies are mandatory for most GCC construction projects. The conditions precedent — notice periods (often 14 days), loss mitigation obligations, documentation requirements, and cooperation clauses — are strictly enforced. A contractor that misses the notice window or fails to document the loss in the prescribed format can find its entire claim denied regardless of the underlying merits or quantum.
D&O insurance has become essential for directors of GCC-listed companies and financial institutions following the increase in regulatory enforcement by SAMA, CMA, and CBUAE. But D&O policies contain exclusions for regulatory fines, fraud, and deliberate breach that insurers frequently invoke when directors face regulatory investigation — precisely the moment when coverage is most needed.
The dommages-ouvrage regime under the Spinetta Law creates a mandatory decennial liability insurance obligation for construction works. DO claims follow strict procedural requirements — the insurer must respond within 60 days of the claim notification, and failure to follow the claim procedure exactly results in rejection. The interaction between French DO insurance and GCC construction insurance on cross-border projects creates jurisdictional conflicts that most brokers are not equipped to resolve.
What's at stake
A CAR claim denied on conditions precedent grounds leaves the contractor bearing the full loss — often AED 10–50 million on a single construction incident — on a policy for which premiums were paid.
A D&O insurer that successfully invokes the regulatory investigation exclusion leaves the director personally liable for defence costs that routinely exceed USD 2–5 million in GCC regulatory proceedings.
A French DO claim rejected on procedural grounds leaves the property owner bearing the full repair cost, which for structural defects typically runs to EUR 1–5 million, while the insurer retains the premium.
Industry challenges
These are the issues that keep decision-makers in your industry awake at night. We hear them every week — and we know how to fix them.
The project suffered a significant loss during construction — a foundation failure, a fire, or water damage from an improperly sealed membrane. The loss is clearly within the CAR policy scope. But the insurer denied the claim because the contractor notified the insurer 21 days after discovery rather than 14 days as required by the policy conditions precedent, or because the loss documentation did not include the specific engineering report the policy requires within 30 days.
Full loss borne by the contractor, typically AED 10–50 million for a single construction incident. The subcontractor's policy may not respond if the main contractor's CAR was the primary coverage. The project timeline extends while the contractor absorbs the loss and arranges alternative funding for remediation.
SAMA or CMA opened a regulatory investigation against the company's directors. The directors submitted a claim under the D&O policy for defence costs. The insurer accepted the claim initially but subsequently invoked the 'regulatory fine' exclusion, the 'conduct' exclusion, or the 'prior knowledge' exclusion to deny coverage for the investigation defence costs. The directors are now personally funding defence costs of SAR 500,000–2 million per month.
Directors personally bearing defence costs of SAR 500,000–2 million per month during investigations that last 12–24 months. Total exposure of SAR 6–24 million per director. The coverage dispute with the insurer runs in parallel with the regulatory investigation — requiring two separate legal workstreams.
Structural defects appeared in a building within the 10-year decennial liability period. The owner notified the DO insurer. The insurer rejected the claim because the notification did not include the specific items required under the Spinetta Law procedure, or because the owner used an informal notification rather than the lettre recommandée avec avis de réception the policy requires. The underlying damage is clear but the procedural failure is fatal.
Full repair cost borne by the property owner, typically EUR 1–5 million for structural defects. The DO insurer retains the premium. Recovery against the builder under decennial liability (Article 1792 of the Civil Code) requires a separate proceeding that takes 18–36 months and depends on the builder's solvency.
Don't let these problems compound.
Let's solve them together.
We represent policyholders and insurers in coverage disputes across CAR, TPL, property damage, business interruption, PI, and D&O policies. Our coverage practice addresses the threshold question in every insurance dispute: does the policy respond? We analyse policy wording, conditions precedent compliance, exclusion applicability, aggregation clauses, and late notification defences. In the GCC, where insurance case law is still developing, policy interpretation often turns on the applicable law clause and the governing jurisdiction.
We advise on CAR, TPL, and builder's risk insurance for GCC construction projects. Our work covers policy placement review (ensuring coverage matches the project risk profile), claims notification and documentation, loss adjuster engagement, coverage position challenges, and subrogation. We work alongside our construction law team to coordinate the insurance claim with the underlying construction dispute — ensuring the claims strategy supports rather than undermines the construction position.
We advise directors facing regulatory investigation on the interaction between the D&O policy, the regulatory proceeding, and the company's indemnification obligations. Our work covers immediate coverage notification, preservation of coverage (avoiding conduct that triggers policy exclusions), insurer engagement strategy, and contested coverage proceedings. We also advise on D&O policy placement for companies preparing for IPO or entering regulated sectors where director exposure is increasing.
We handle insurance and reinsurance arbitration under ICC, LCIA, DIAC, and SCCA rules. Insurance arbitrations have specific features: the disclosure of underwriting files and claims-handling correspondence, the role of loss adjusters as witnesses, and the interaction between the policy's arbitration clause and the applicable insurance regulation's mandatory dispute resolution provisions. We also advise on subrogation claims where the insurer, having paid the claim, pursues recovery against the responsible third party.
Not necessarily. In many GCC jurisdictions, the insurer must demonstrate that the late notification caused actual prejudice before denying coverage. If the insurer was not prejudiced by the 7-day delay — because the loss was independently verifiable, the documentation was complete, and the delay did not affect the insurer's investigation — the denial may not survive challenge. The analysis depends on the governing law (UAE Insurance Law, Saudi Cooperative Insurance Law) and whether the policy's conditions precedent are classified as conditions (breach = no coverage) or warranties (breach = damages).
If the insurer accepted the claim and the director relied on that acceptance (incurring defence costs, instructing lawyers), the insurer may be estopped from subsequently invoking an exclusion that was apparent at the time of acceptance. This argument is stronger in DIFC (which applies common-law estoppel principles) than in onshore UAE or Saudi Arabia. The critical evidence is the insurer's initial coverage position and whether it reserved its rights at that stage.
French DO insurance covers the owner against structural defects during the 10-year decennial liability period. GCC CAR insurance covers the contractor during the construction period. The gap arises at handover: CAR coverage typically expires at practical completion, while DO coverage attaches from acceptance of the works. If a latent defect manifests after CAR expiry but the DO insurer argues the defect originated during construction (and should have been claimed under CAR), the owner may fall between two policies. We coordinate the claims to avoid this gap.
In most jurisdictions, you can recover damages for wrongful denial of coverage, which may include consequential losses arising from the denial. Premium recovery is separate from the coverage dispute — the premium was consideration for the policy, and the policy existed regardless of whether the claim was paid. However, if the insurer's denial was in bad faith or unreasonable, additional damages (including legal costs of the coverage dispute) may be recoverable depending on the governing law and jurisdiction.
The three most common gaps in IPO D&O policies are: (1) the 'prior acts' exclusion that cuts off coverage for claims arising from pre-IPO conduct; (2) the securities claims exclusion that may not cover prospectus liability claims in the specific jurisdiction of listing; and (3) the regulatory investigation exclusion that may deny coverage for the exact CMA/DFSA investigation that is most likely post-IPO. The policy must be specifically reviewed against the regulatory framework of the listing jurisdiction. Off-the-shelf D&O policies do not provide adequate coverage for GCC IPOs.
Our CAR insurer denied a AED 38 million claim on a 7-day late notification. GSDA demonstrated the insurer suffered no prejudice and recovered the full claim plus our legal costs. The insurer's own loss adjuster report confirmed the delay was immaterial.
Risk Manager — GCC Construction Group
Insights
The GSDA advantage
Combined insurance and construction law expertise — essential when the coverage dispute and the construction dispute must be coordinated.
French dommages-ouvrage knowledge for cross-border projects between GCC developers and French contractors.
D&O advisory at the intersection of insurance law and regulatory enforcement — protecting directors on both fronts simultaneously.
Policy wording analysis capability across English, French, and Arabic policy forms.
Direct experience with GCC insurance dispute resolution — where precedent is limited and outcomes depend heavily on jurisdiction selection and expert presentation.