As the Bovis case shows, contribution issues can be very complex and result in costly legal invoices when lawyers are to be consulted to get rid of the case. While double insurance may seem comforting at the beginning of a massive construction project, the reality is that one policy per issue can be much easier to manage if you ever have to make a claim. One of the most confusing areas of insurance law is “double insurance” and the principle of contributions. To understand the principle of contribution, it is always important to keep in mind that the basic principle of compensation is: Tree managers can be added or removed by filing a fix in the MAINTAINERS file. The applicant must justify the need for a new lower tree and justify sufficient contributions in the area or in a similar area. The person in charge must be confirmed by the confirmation of an existing official. Disagreements about trees or facilitators may be referred to the technical committee. The solution found by the courts was that, in such cases, the two insurers would pay a contribution to the injury and the respective “leak clauses” would repeal each other. (see Gale/Motor Union Insurance Co Ltd  1 KB 359) Component managers can be added or removed by sending a fix to the MAINTAINERS file. Facilitators should have justified an appropriate level of contributions or verifications in the component field.
The tutor should be confirmed by confirmation from an established contributor. There may be more than one component manager if you wish. Complex construction projects, which have a number of policies at all times, can lead to dual insurance problems. If more than one insurance policy covers a particular injury, the insured must decide which policy he or she is entitled to. In this situation, the insurance, which has to pay, often searches the other insurer for a premium. In a number of cases, insurers have tried to avoid paying premiums. One such example, Bovis Construction Ltd/Commercial Union Assurance Co plc  1 Lloyd`s Rep 416 illustrated the complexity of these disputes. In that case, a dispute was reached as a result of a management contract entered into by Bovis and his client Rosehaugh in September 1988.