"Reasonable Time"

Balancing required destructive work with protecting all parties' rights in an investigation after a loss can be tricky, especially when there is an urgency to resume production and avoid unnecessary operational delays. Cultural pressures exist in organizations which prioritize production, as it directly relates to profit. A balance following a loss therefore lies with minimizing business interruption which may require dismantling, moving, or disassembling equipment that could be critical in cause analysis.

An appreciation for operational continuity must be realized by all parties involved in an insurance claim. This understanding, however, is not always shared equally, particularly by parties not immediately affected by the operational impacts. While the urgency to resume production can apply significant pressure, there must also be a clear understanding of protecting the interest of all parties that may hold liability in causation. Pressure may be applied by operations to resume production, but a clear expectation needs to be set that the investigation can not be prejudiced, and this can be a challenge to navigate in practice.

The complexity increases when there is no first-party Business Interruption coverage, and third-party liability insurers or stakeholders delay necessary destructive work. This work can include dismantling equipment on site or repairing equipment to return it to service. Swift and precise incident management is crucial to prevent the operator from facing undue delays, yet a fundamental question arises: How long is "long enough" for third parties to respond to requests for destructive work?

In law, there isn't typically a "universal" statute that mandates how long you must wait before destructive testing, or work, can begin. Timing and procedural requirements often depend on the jurisdiction, context, and specific legal considerations. Delays caused by third parties must be addressed appropriately, and accountability assigned where necessary—though this can be challenging in the absence of explicit timeframes.

It is therefore crucial that when a loss occurs there is a robust understanding on the operational aspect, applicable local laws, and relevant insurance coverages in place. This ensures downtime is minimized, third parties are managed effectively, and all parties' rights in the investigation are preserved. Ultimately, the key question becomes: What is “a reasonable time” to give a third party to respond to a loss, or for the first party to initiate destructive work to resume production? What seems reasonable to one party may not seem reasonable to another.