OTHER PAGE

Liability

Leaked fluids from a wreck of two vehicles were not properly cleaned up by a private firm. As a result, a motorcyclist was seriously injured when he slid through the oil slick. In the claim against the private firm, would this be a BAP or CGL exposure? Does the pollution exclusion in either policy apply?
An event planner wants to expand his services to include hiring a shuttle van, shuttle bus, or limo as a part of a package deal when planning large events. The agent seems to remember that the ISO BAP excludes hiring an auto with a driver but can’t find any exclusions in the coverage form which address this exposure. Is he missing something?
A customer with a d/b/a sole proprietorship owns two autos covered by a BAP written with Symbols 7, 8, and 9. She drives one, largely on business, and her retired husband drives the other. You have a chance to bid on her insurance and note that she does not have the DOC endorsement. When you bring it up, she tells you her current agent says they don’t need it and symbols 7, 8, and 9 give her “full coverage.” Is that true?
A commercial prospect's CEO drives a company car. The current agent told the CEO that DOC coverage is not necessary if Symbol 1 coverage is used for liability since it covers 'any auto.' I disagree but would like help with some examples of why DOC should be added.
One of the most common claim scenarios reported through the VU “Ask an Expert” service involves injury or damage arising from the loading or unloading of a vehicle or its operation as mobile equipment when the CGL and auto policies have been written with different carriers. This article provides four reasons why it may be advisable to place both policies with the same insurer.
A contractor was hauling an oil tank on his flatbed trailer to a disposal site. The tank leaked a small amount of oil onto the road and a motorcycle in back of the truck slid on the oil, injuring the driver. The insurance carrier denied the loss based on the pollution exclusion. Do you agree? We don't and here's why....
An employee operating an employer-owned auto negligently damages his own property, e.g., striking his own private vehicle or garage at home. Does the BAP liability coverage respond to a claim for recovery for this type of damage to the employee's own property?
An insured was operating a company-owned vehicle after hours for personal use. He is required to carry a pager as he is on call 24 hours for emergencies. He was involved in a car accident and injured as a result of the accident. Does workers compensation apply or the business auto PIP coverage? The workers comp and auto are written in different companies and, of course, each is denying the loss, claiming that it is covered by the other policy.
In the article, 'The 'Work You Performed' Exclusion,' it is pointed out that damage to a customer's auto during an ongoing operation, absent garagekeepers coverage, is often denied due to the care, custody or control liability exclusion. However, this might not always be the case if the Separation of Insureds provision controls.
For whatever reason(s), some carriers are more willing to write business auto liability coverage under Symbols 2, 8, and 9, rather than Symbol 1. Recently, we received an 'Ask an Expert' question from an agent who's BAP insurer insisted on Symbols 2, 8 & 9 saying, according to the agent, that they were equivalent to Symbol 1. What do you think...are these essentially the same? According to our BAP gurus, NO!
Your commercial insured hires an independent contractor to snowplow his lot. If your insured is sued, under his BAP should he have at least Symbol 8, or 9 coverage? In other words, is this a hired or nonowned auto exposure? Or does he need a BAP at all for this claim? Could his CGL policy suffice?
In May, following a June renewal, one of the insured's vehicles was involved in a fatal auto accident. It was learned that the vehicle was purchased the previous May just before the renewal, but was inadvertently omitted when the schedule of vehicles was submitted with the renewal. Is there any liability coverage under Symbol 1?
When a garage does repair work on an auto, it's possible that negligent or defective work could result in subsequent damage. For example, a leaky oil change could result in the engine seizing, a slipping fanbelt could cause overheating, an improperly repaired tire could cause an accident. At issue is what part of that resulting damage is covered or excluded by the garage policy? The answer may depend on a LOT of variables...and on the varying opinions of adjusters.
Your insured is a large company that maintains its own vehicles. They serviced the brakes on a truck and, while being operated, the brakes failed, there was an accident, and two people were killed. The Business Auto Policy (BAP) carrier has denied the claim, citing the completed operations exclusion. The CGL doesn't cover ownership, maintenance, or use of an auto. You read the BAP and it appears the adjuster is correct....
With the mobility that technology offers in the form of cell phones, PDAs, and laptops, the ability to conduct business away from the traditional office has exposed employers to hazards not considered or dreamed of just a few years ago. Employers are subject to an ever-increasing chance of being held vicariously liable for the actions of their employees working outside of the traditional office.