Lack of detailed insurance requirements – here you have damage.

Conditions precedent to the execution of a TAMA 38 transaction and understanding their importance on the path to a successful transaction - without a doubt a fundamental issue, and a lot of ink has been spilled on this issue and the issue has been discussed many times. However, the issue of insurance in TAMA 38 projects is often not given sufficient thought, and quite a few times I have witnessed a significant lack of fundamental issues.

One example of many is the damage caused to many buildings and their contents in TAMA 38 projects, following a storm that occurred suddenly and unexpectedly in the center, in May 2014.

Is there coverage?
Insurance coverage for natural damage in the summer is seemingly clear, as this is a "physical and unforeseen" event, as defined by the policy.

But what?
The policy must include ALL RISK coverage for the existing structure, otherwise the coverage section for natural damage is not included at all.

Lessons are not always learned.
In our places, often out of lack of knowledge and a desire to save, and also because of the tendency of quite a few insurance companies to avoid providing full insurance coverage for the existing structure, they settle for expanding "property on which they work," which does not include any coverage for natural damage. And the emphasis here is precisely on the desire to save.

This is exactly what happened to the entrepreneur who insured one project with me during that period, while the second project (which began about a month later) - the entrepreneur, pressured by the contractor, agreed to insure the contractor with another insurance agent, saving several thousand shekels.

An Unexpected Summer Storm - May 2014
In May 2014, as a result of the sudden force of the storm that passed through our area, both buildings were significantly damaged, as the seals had already been removed from the roofs, and the aluminum windows and doors were just in the process of being replaced - and the damage was severe.

Our policy, which included uncompromising coverage and cost a little more, paid a very substantial amount, while the second policy (incidentally, with the same insurance company) did not provide any solution.