Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content


Before reviewing the exclusions, exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions, you must confirm the loss even qualifies for coverage based upon the grant of coverage found in the insuring agreement.
Our Ask an Expert service offers Big 'I' members insight into today’s risks or other coverage, technology, or agency management issues today’s agents encounter. This article offers insight into an important question we received: If I administer Narcan as a trained or untrained employee in emergency situations as required by the employer, will the employer’s general liability policy respond based on the “Who is an insured' definition and definition of 'bodily injury”?
An insured who is leasing a building or space in a building is being required by the landlord to carry $1M in “fire legal” coverage. The insured’s CGL insurer will not provide more than $300K in FDLL limits. What can the insured do? Better, what SHOULD the insured do?
A commercial prospect rents space at a warehouse and his current agent tells him that the fire damage legal liability coverage on his CGL policy covers him there. The prospective agent believes that the CP 00 40 Legal Liability Coverage Form is superior. Who is right…or are both wrong?
Very simply, how does or might the commercial general liability (CGL) policy respond to the coronavirus? There are many hurdles that must be jumped before the CGL will respond.
Most general liability coverage cases, that address whether “property damage” has taken place, focus on the “physical injury to tangible property” aspect of the definition. You can see that a building is no longer standing or that water intrusion has caused damage. On the other hand, whether there has been a “loss of use” of property can be more esoteric. So, between “physical injury” cases being more common, thereby providing more guidance, as well as involving a more easily identifiable injury, it is not surprising that “loss of use”-based “property damage” cases can be challenging.
In the world of insurance coverage, the word “claim” is one of the most frequently spoken. It is used by an injured party to describe its pursuit of relief against the wrongdoer and the wrongdoer uses the term to describe its pursuit of coverage from its insurer. Obviously, the term “claim” is not immune from disputes when it appears in an insurance policy.
Coverage Part B of the CGL is often overlooked. The focus seems to be on Bodily Injury and Property Damage (Coverage Part A); however, personal and advertising injury is an exposure every insured must consider. This primer allows agents to be prepared for this important conversation.
Proprietary coverage forms are not always better than Insurance Services Office (ISO) forms. Careful comparison is required to confirm the insured is not harmed by non-ISO language. A recent Illinois district court ruling highlights an incidence where ISO’s Personal and Advertising Injury wording may be broader and better for the insured.
An agent asks: When coverage is provided by two different carriers for two different policy periods and injury or damage occurs, which CGL policy should respond to the loss?
In 1999, ISO, following the lead of a number of companies, introduced a series of new and revised 'Montrose' endorsements for the CGL program. This filing was prompted by a California Supreme Court decision, Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., that adopted the 'continuous trigger' of coverage under third-party liability claims and abdicated the 'loss-in-progress' or 'known loss' rule that was at the foundation of insurance. The information below examines the background, coverage changes and implications of the Montrose decision.
The named insured is a corporation. The sole stockholder personally owns a piece of land on which the corporation parks its vehicles. A pedestrian tripped on the premises and is suing the insured corporation. The location of this land was not specifically scheduled as a location on the policy. The insurer of seven years is denying the claim on the basis of misrepresentation, that the insured didn't declare the location. Is this correct?
The insured negligently caused a fire to his own rented area. It was paid under the landlord's property policy and now they are subrogating against the insured tenant. The insured's carrier is saying that, even though 'fire legal' is part of the CGL policy (now referred to in the CGL forms as 'Damage to Premises Rented to You'), the Other Insurance clause states it is excess over other insurance and they will not defend the insured in the lawsuit nor indeminify the landlord. Is fire legal liability coverage primary or excess?
A restaurant was insured under a CGL with the CG 24 07 attached. A customer broke a crown eating a BBQ sandwich. The adjuster denied the $285 medical payments claim due to the CG 24 07. Subsequently, they denied the liability claim on the basis that, once the product has been turned over to the consumer, it is no longer the insured's product. What's going on here and where is Rod Serling when you need him?
Recently our 'Ask an Expert' service received two questions from agents in different states who had experienced the same claim. A restaurant customer broke a tooth on an olive pit in a salad and the restaurant's insurer denied liability. Read the full article to get our slant on this denial, as well as learn something important about the 'Ask an Expert' service.
There has been an increasingly disturbing trend of courts upholding claim denials based on property damage not arising from an 'occurrence' in the CGL policy. Typically, these claims involve contractors and damage to 'your work.' While I'm not saying the claims are covered, I do question whether the 'no occurrence' basis for the denial is proper and in keeping with the policy language.
The CGL policy has several exclusions that apply to faulty workmanship. However, a number of courts have ruled that these exclusions are meaningless because damage to your own work (even if caused by a subcontractor) is not an 'occurrence,' so the insuring agreement isn't even triggered. We are now seeing legislation and CGL endorsements in response to these rulings.
If you recall the old Flip Wilson TV show, he had a recurring sketch with the theme 'The devil made me do it!' In the routine, his alter-ego, Geraldine, would get into trouble, then disclaim responsibility, blaming it on the devil. Too often, this happens in our business when liability is denied by the carrier. In this article, we'll take a look at a claim where there was clearly coverage under the policy...however, the carrier denied the claim, taking the position that the insured was not liable.
One of the most often misunderstood insurance issues involves what event triggers coverage under a liability policy? Is it when the negligence occurs or when, possibly years later, the BI or PD occurs? Is there a difference in the coverage trigger between an occurrence and a claims-made policy? How does this issue affect discontinued operations and products exposures? In this article, we'll attempt to solve these mysteries.
​127 South Peyton Street
Alexandria VA 22314
​phone: 800.221.7917
fax: 703.683.7556

Follow Us!

​Empowering Trusted Choice®
Independent Insurance Agents.