John:
The changes I suggested on the watercraft wording are still being reviewed 
for completeness. I think what I gave you will work for most situations where 
the watercraft is incidental to the work or is far removed from our being 
involved [contractor to sub to sub contractor] but it does not address every 
situation that we could be involved in. We may need to expand our wording 
accordingly.

Likewise, your question on giving to the turbine venders the waiver of 
subrogation and additional insured is an even bigger concern. You are asking 
us to obligate ourselves in providing waiver and additional insured status to 
GE which we cannot do.   As you know, we went many years with providing 
turbine venders protection under the insurance because the market was soft 
and underwriters agreed to it. Now they balk at giving it because of the 
losses they have incurred and we cannot predict what they will agree to. It 
does not matter if the machines are proto-type or not, there is a good chance 
right now that they will not agree to insuring the vender. Everyone says it 
only takes money and in many cases we could probably include venders on the 
insurance but I cannot recommend committing to it in a long term contract ) 
we have to arrange the insurance at the time we need it in order to determine 
if it is available. 

If you need to have some language in the agreement, I would recommend that we 
not give the waive and additional insured to GE or any vender. When we need 
the insurance and begin placing it, we can then determine if the underwriter 
will cover the vender and ask for a price reduction from GE to move their 
risk to the underwriter.

I am sorry I cannot make this easier but that is the nature of the insurance 
beast.
Paul