Eyes on Risk – Insu­rance at Your Back

Sup­pli­ers in the auto­mo­ti­ve indus­try are under incre­asing pres­su­re. From recalls and pro­duct lia­bi­li­ty to deli­very dis­rup­ti­ons, the poten­ti­al risks are num­e­rous and cos­t­ly. Wit­hout ade­qua­te insu­rance, the eco­no­mic risks can be high. The­r­e­fo­re, insu­rance is not just a “nice to have”, but a cen­tral com­po­nent of cor­po­ra­te risk management.

Various lia­bi­li­ty risks

Sup­pli­ers are regu­lar­ly held lia­ble for dama­ges on various legal grounds. Sup­pli­ers are lia­ble in tort for dama­ges cau­sed by their pro­ducts, for exam­p­le in the case of third-party recalls. They are also lia­ble under pro­duct lia­bi­li­ty law (Pro­dukt­haf­tungs­ge­setz) for per­so­nal inju­ry and pro­per­ty dama­ge cau­sed by defec­ti­ve pro­ducts. Fur­ther­mo­re, sup­pli­ers are often held con­trac­tual­ly lia­ble if they breach their obli­ga­ti­ons to cus­to­mers. The­se risks are mani­fold and exa­cer­ba­ted by exten­si­ve cus­to­mer specifications.

Cus­to­mer spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons & the sup­pli­er’s “sand­wich position”

Insurance-related requi­re­ments are not uncom­mon in cus­to­mer con­tracts, which is an important con­side­ra­ti­on for busi­nesses to take into account. Howe­ver, the­se requi­re­ments are often unclear, lea­ding to uncer­tain­ty and misun­derstan­dings regar­ding lia­bi­li­ty and covera­ge. For exam­p­le, some con­tracts requi­re sup­pli­ers to pro­vi­de ‘ade­qua­te insu­rance covera­ge’ wit­hout spe­ci­fy­ing what con­sti­tu­tes ‘ade­qua­te’ covera­ge. Con­ver­se­ly, other con­tracts spe­ci­fy par­ti­cu­lar poli­ci­es or mini­mum covera­ge amounts that may not be sui­ted to the spe­ci­fic sup­p­ly rela­ti­onship bet­ween the con­trac­ting par­ties. The situa­ti­on beco­mes par­ti­cu­lar­ly pro­ble­ma­tic when sup­pli­ers have to bear exces­si­ve lia­bi­li­ty risks, while addi­tio­nal con­trac­tu­al risks ari­se if insu­rance requi­re­ments under the con­tract are not ful­ly met. This ‘sand­wich posi­ti­on’ can quick­ly beco­me a finan­cial mine­field for the sup­pli­er. This makes it all the more important to compa­re the insu­rance terms and con­di­ti­ons with the con­trac­tu­al requi­re­ments set by the customer.

Lia­bi­li­ty & coverage

Insu­rance is a key instru­ment for achie­ving finan­cial resi­li­ence, but it does not nega­te lia­bi­li­ty. This means that anyo­ne who is lia­ble under con­tract or by law remains lia­ble in prin­ci­ple, even if insu­rance exists. The poli­cy usual­ly only covers the finan­cial risk, and only up to the limit spe­ci­fied in the insu­rance contract.

The issue of pro­duct recalls regu­lar­ly high­lights a cri­ti­cal point: the con­trac­tu­al lia­bi­li­ty risks to which a com­pa­ny is expo­sed (e.g. from cus­to­mer con­tracts) and its actu­al insu­rance covera­ge (from the poli­cy) do not ali­gn in key are­as. For exam­p­le the term ‘recall’ is often defi­ned dif­fer­ent­ly. The result is that the­re is a risk of signi­fi­cant gaps in covera­ge. The­r­e­fo­re, it is essen­ti­al that cus­to­mer con­tracts and insu­rance poli­ci­es are careful­ly coor­di­na­ted. While com­ple­te ali­gnment bet­ween lia­bi­li­ty and covera­ge is rare­ly achie­va­ble in prac­ti­ce, the clo­ser they are lin­ked, the more effec­tively risks can be mana­ged and finan­cial bur­dens avoided.

Con­clu­si­on

Insu­rance and covera­ge issues are not just admi­nis­tra­ti­ve mat­ters; they are important tools in risk manage­ment. Tho­se who mana­ge their con­tracts and poli­ci­es as clo­se­ly as pos­si­ble, inclu­ding with the help of bro­kers, redu­ce their lia­bi­li­ty risk and streng­then their ope­ra­tio­nal sta­bi­li­ty and mar­ket position.

back

Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.