Property Risk Consulting Advocacy Helps to Eliminate the Requirement for a $250,000 investment

Risk advocacy on behalf of a Fortune 500 company helps to eliminate the requirement for a $250,000 investment in a sprinkler installation. The consultant was able to demonstrate that the existing fire strategy could be reinforced by implementing cost effective recommendations which would result in a robust arrangement which would render any benefit from automatic sprinklers as marginal.

The Client and Its Challenge

A highly ranked Fortune 500 information technology and health care support services company was being put under pressure by their insurer to install a sprinkler system in an international subsidiary location. This system would have cost approximately $250,000 in capital expenditure and caused significant disruption to the operations whilst being installed.

The Risk Consulting Solution

The client engaged a consultant to provide risk advocacy services and to independently assess the need for sprinklers. The consultant utilised a three track approach consisting of:

• Assessing the adequacy of the current fire strategy
• Addressing the possible need for automatic sprinkler protection at the site
• Devising recommendations to strengthen the fire strategy and or to address shortcomings within in.

The consultant was able to demonstrate that the existing fire strategy could be reinforced by implementing cost effective recommendations which would result in a robust arrangement which would render any benefit from automatic sprinklers as marginal.
Key features of the work included:

• Understanding the insurer point of view
• Communicating in insurer terms and language
• Demonstrating independence
• No defending of entrenched positions but rather tempering of demands
• Conceding in some areas in order to obtain concessions elsewhere

Results

The client eliminated the need to install automatic sprinklers by agreeing to install spot sprinklers in 2 higher hazard areas only at a minimal cost. Accordingly, they removed the need for a $250,000 capital expenditure and avoided the significant operational disruption that would have been caused during the installation of a sprinkler system. The client was very satisfied.

Back to Case Studies