What a head contractor is entitled to ask for
In short
- A head contractor can ask for evidence of the cover its own contract or policy actually requires — the classes, the limit, and any notation the risk genuinely calls for.
- Asking for a copy of the full policy wording, rather than a certificate or schedule extract, goes further than most contracts require and most subcontractors will not readily provide it.
- A requirement copied from a template without regard to the size or risk of the job is common, and questioning it is a reasonable response, not a confrontation.
A subcontractor receives an insurance request that feels excessive — a class of cover unrelated to the work, a limit that seems built for a much bigger job, or a demand for documents beyond a certificate. Some of that is a legitimate ask from a head contractor managing its own risk. Some of it is a template requirement nobody has reviewed in years.
This page sets out what a head contractor can reasonably ask for, and where a request starts to overreach.
What is a reasonable request
A head contractor can ask for evidence that the classes of cover, the limit and the period of insurance meet what its own contract, its own liability policy, or a licence condition actually requires for that specific scope of work. That is the whole point of collecting certificates: confirming a real, contract-relevant requirement is met.
It can also ask for notations that its own risk position genuinely needs — being noted as an interested party, or covered by a principal’s indemnity extension for that contract — because those are standard, obtainable additions to a policy, not unusual demands.
Where requests commonly overreach
Asking for the complete policy wording, rather than a certificate or an extract of the relevant schedule pages, goes beyond what most contracts require and discloses far more than a head contractor needs to confirm compliance. A certificate or a targeted schedule extract answers the same question with far less exposure of commercially sensitive detail.
A minimum limit or class requirement copied wholesale from a template built for large civil works, applied without adjustment to a small maintenance job, is a mismatch worth questioning rather than a fixed rule to be met at any cost.
How a subcontractor should respond to an unclear request
Ask what the requirement is actually trying to establish — usually, confirmation that a genuine risk is covered and that the head contractor’s own policy conditions are being met. Once the underlying concern is clear, it is often possible to satisfy it with less than what was initially asked for.
Where a request genuinely does not fit the scope of work — a class of cover that has no relevance to the job at all — saying so, in writing, with the reasoning attached, is a legitimate response and usually the fastest way to a workable outcome.
Questions
- Can a head contractor demand a copy of my full policy wording?
- It can ask, but most contracts are satisfied by a certificate or a relevant schedule extract, which answer the compliance question without disclosing the whole document. Asking why the fuller document is needed is a reasonable response.
- What if the insurance clause asks for a class of cover I do not need for this job?
- Raise it directly, in writing, explaining what the work actually involves. Requirements are frequently copied between contracts without review, and many head contractors will adjust a mismatched clause once it is pointed out.
- Is it reasonable to be asked to note the head contractor as an interested party?
- Yes — that is a standard, low-friction addition most brokers can arrange quickly, and it gives the head contractor only a notification right, not cover, so it is a modest ask relative to what it provides them.
Sources
- business.gov.au — engaging contractors — Australian Government guidance on engaging contractors, the employee/contractor distinction, and contractor obligations including insurance.
- ASIC — Regulator of the AFS licensees and authorised representatives — including brokers — who issue certificates of currency.