Please can someone explain the difference, if any, between an insurer paying a contractor directly (the contractor chosen by the insurer) or paying the insured party who then pays a contractor. I do not want to find myseLf having to argue with the contractor should the work fail in the future and instead want to go back to the insurer who would put this right again. I have been told this week that "it is not insurers obligation to reinstate and the contractual relationship is between the contractor and the insured party" which sounds like the insurer is not interested if there are any future issues. Does this sound right? It is not how I understood things but I may have misunderstood. And does the mode of payment have any bearing on this position? Thanks very much.