I don’t know if Graham de Roy (7 August, page 29) is spoiling for a fight, but he seems to have taken a highly selective view of my article (24 July, page 48) on latent defects insurance (LDI)
My article began by highlighting the drawbacks of collateral warranties as a means of protecting third parties. It then flagged the perceived shortcomings of typical LDI policies, before pointing out that there are now policies available in the market that address every one of Graham’s points.
In any event, an LDI policy is not a substitute for a robust collateral warranty package. Each serves different purposes and neither is a panacea. From a developer’s perspective, the main aim is to secure a package attractive to prospective purchasers and tenants. If a set of collateral warranties achieves this objective, he is unlikely to incur the extra expense of buying LDI cover.
Graham’s position is clear, and he asserts that he is happy to be an “over-egger”. That is his prerogative. However, I would suggest that developers are better served by a more balanced view of the respective pros and cons of collateral warranties and LDI, which my article sought to provide.