Key Points
- Water damage is the top loss driver in construction, accounting for an estimated $16 billion per year.
- Most water mitigation plans focus on response after an event. Loss control engineers look for evidence of prevention built into the project from the start.
- Site organization is a leading indicator. A clean, well-run job site signals a contractor who follows through on requirements, including water mitigation ones.
- Engineers verify that devices called for in the plan are installed on site. Surveys are timed to critical milestones specifically to check this.
- The most reliable test of a plan’s real-world value: asking a random crew member who they would call and how they would shut off water if a pipe were leaking right now.
Non-weather water claims now account for over a third of all builders’ risk losses, costing the construction industry an estimated $16 billion per year. Developing a water risk mitigation strategy that survives contact with a real event is something loss control engineers evaluate every day, and the gap between plans that do and plans that don’t is wider than most project teams expect.
At Wint’s Risk to Resilience Summit, James Boileau, Risk Engineering Director of Construction at Zurich, Josh Banks, Loss Control Consultant at Starr, and Jared Bush-Howe, Senior Risk Consultant at Allianz, discussed what they look for when they walk a construction site. All three came to the same work through similar paths: years on the project side before moving into risk engineering, which means they know the difference between a plan written to satisfy a requirement and a plan a job site crew has internalized.
Here is what Boileau, Banks, and Bush-Howe say they look for when they walk a site.
Most Water Mitigation Plans Focus on Response, Not Prevention
The most common gap loss control engineers see is that construction water mitigation plans address what to do after a water event, not how to prevent one. From a loss control engineering standpoint, the project team needs to plan for water damage prevention during the pre-construction phase, with intrusion controls built into design, subcontractor selection, and operational planning. Most plans that reach loss control engineers are built around the opposite sequence: damage occurs, then the response begins.
“A lot of [contractors] tend to talk more about water incident response, and how they’re going to mitigate mold, and respond to a water event, but not necessarily the prevention. So the gap is the prevention.”
Josh Banks, Loss Control Consultant, Starr
This gap has material consequences. Water losses are highest during the final phases of construction, when a single event can damage months of completed work. A single plumbing failure in a building that is 90% finished can undo months of completed work: saturated drywall, warped wood, water migrating between floors. The later in the project a prevention gap surfaces, the more expensive the event it enables.
The prevention side requires decisions to be made in pre-construction: scheduling dry-in floors before drywall installation begins on lower levels of a high-rise, buying out the waterproofing subcontractor with a clear scope before construction starts, understanding which facade systems are self-sealing and which require sequential exterior work that can be missed under a compressed schedule. These choices shape how much water risk the project carries through the entire build.
Site Organization Is a Leading Indicator
Before a loss control engineer opens a water mitigation plan, they read the site. A well-organized, clean job site signals something specific: that the general contractor has command of the schedule and the subcontractors. That command is what determines whether requirements, including water mitigation requirements, are followed in the field rather than just documented.
The initial impression matters because it sets the frame for every conversation that follows. A contractor who runs a clean site tends to be a contractor who talks about water mitigation in terms of what has been done, rather than what is planned or what was specified by someone else.
Plans With Placeholder Text Are More Common Than They Should Be
When engineers ask to see a water mitigation plan on site, the first check is whether it still contains generic placeholder language, the kind that indicates a template was downloaded, filled in minimally, and printed.
A plan that was never customized for the specific project offers no useful guidance when something goes wrong. A designated site representative needs to be assigned to manage, implement, oversee, and update the water damage prevention plan throughout the project’s life, with specific responsibilities clearly defined. A template with no named owner is a plan that belongs to no one.
Devices Called for in the Plan Need to Be on Site
Loss control surveys are scheduled at critical construction milestones to verify that the controls the plan describes are installed. When sensors, monitoring devices, or shutoff valves are missing at a milestone where they should be in place, it warrants a direct conversation about contract requirements and remediation timing.
Beyond the technology, there are simpler physical controls that matter: roof drain screening to keep debris from causing ponding, plywood or plastic inserts protecting tub and shower openings during construction, pressure gauges on standpipes that are drained down when they should be. These are low-cost, easy-to-maintain details that signal whether a contractor is actively managing water risk or waiting for something to go wrong.
Commissioning is the highest-exposure phase of the project. Getting loss control involvement before commissioning, with all pre-commissioning meetings completed and all players aligned, is the kind of step that separates projects with strong water risk programs from those managed by reaction.
The Crew Knows Whether the Plan Is Real
The most direct test of a water mitigation plan’s operational implementation is asking a random member of the site crew what they would do if a pipe were leaking in front of them right now: who to call, how to shut it off. The answer reveals more than any document review. A crew that has been trained on the plan and knows the notification chain can answer without hesitation. A crew that has never seen the plan outside of an onboarding packet cannot.
The same test applies to project leadership. Loss control engineers ask who is on the call tree, whether that person’s contact information is current, whether the shutoff valve has ever been tested. Outdated numbers or valves that have never been operated under a live scenario, are the sorts of details that convert a manageable water event into a major loss.
“When things go wrong, that’s not the time to learn how to respond. I’d rather deal with it in a controlled environment where we know what could go wrong and can make plans to correct it.”
James Boileau, Risk Engineering Director of Construction at Zurich
Loss control engineers look for plans that have been practiced, owned, updated, and tested in controlled environments. The foundation of an effective water damage prevention plan is a designated site representative with defined responsibilities for managing, implementing, and updating the plan throughout the project’s life.
The Risk Engineering Opinion Forms Before Anyone Visits the Site
A loss control site visit is not the first time an engineering opinion of a project’s water risk is formed. When a builder’s risk submission goes to market, risk engineers review it and develop an opinion based on whatever information has been provided. A submission that describes a specific water mitigation approach, including the technology that will be used and how it will be deployed, gives engineers something to evaluate. A submission that does not mention water mitigation leaves the engineering opinion at its default: the project’s inherent risk profile with no credit for controls.
“When those submissions go out, it’s critical that the brokers are provided with: we are thinking about utilizing XYZ system, this system will have zones, automatic shutoff. Because somewhere there’s going to be an engineer sitting behind a computer like me, looking at the submission and developing an opinion of that risk.”
Jared Bush-Howe, Senior Risk Consultant III, Allianz
The specificity of the technology approach, the clarity of the ownership structure, the evidence that prevention, not just response, has been considered, all shape the engineering opinion that determines coverage terms. Getting that right from the start has material value beyond any single event.
The Bottom Line
Water damage is the most frequent and one of the most costly losses in construction, and the projects that handle it best treat it as a planning problem rather than a response problem. Loss control engineers can tell the difference within minutes of walking a site: whether the plan is customized or templated, whether the devices it calls for are installed, whether the crew knows what to do.
An effective stress test for a water mitigation plan is the same one engineers apply on-site; ask a trade partner at random, “what would you do if you noticed a water leak?” Do they know who to call or where the shut-off valve is? Further questions could include spill kit locations, drain locations, etc. If the answers hold up, the plan is real.
This post is based on the session, “What Insurers Actually Look For: Inside Water Risk Decisions on Construction Sites” at Wint’s Risk to Resilience Summit. If you’d like to watch the full session, you can find the recording here.
