Construction company wants to exclude liability for possible damages

Hello,

what is your opinion on the following matter:
"Suppose" a construction company defines that they are not liable for damages their vehicles cause to "pavements, buildings, underground pipes, channels, shafts, etc."

Isn't there something fishy about that? Are they trying to get a free pass for chaos at the construction site?

Or is that common - and you just have to accept it and hope that everything goes well?

Shouldn't they be insured for that?
Otherwise, huge sums could come at you.

What do you think? Does anyone know any links about this?

is unusual and not ok. If the gravel truck hits a streetlight, if it damages the curb, if the excavator hits the neighbor's cable, the party responsible must be liable and repair or have it repaired.

Or is that common - and you just have to swallow it and hope that everything goes well?

KO criterion for the selection of the construction company. For that, she has insurance - or at least should have, if she doesn't already have problems.