There is a big push on OCP coverage because some entities, particularly those that assume the liability of others and agree to provide coverage to supplement their contractual liability, do not like the idea of sharing their policy and limits. Currently, only one insurer is providing the PMPL policy and that is CNA Insurance Company. These actually are the only three advantages, and none applies until coverage has been established. Generally, there are two coverages. The problem here is that general supervision is not defined and, based on the number of cases thus far rendered, would appear to be ambiguous.
Insurers nonetheless continue to use that undefined term in their policies.
The only exception is with respect to the PMPL policy, which does define that term. Recall that, as was noted earlier, property owners have been viewed as not generally performing general supervision of work, unlike general contractors. If that were generally the case, property owners would be receiving only pure vicarious liability coverage and in many cases that would fall short of their needs. The reason is that when the business relationship is one of property owner and contractor, property owners commonly are confronted with suits brought against them by employees of contractors who are injured on the property of the owners. The only sole fault coverage a property owner has under an OCP policy relates to general supervision, and the common allegation against property owners is failure to provide a safe place to work.