Source: https://www.insurancethoughtleadership.com/tag/insurance-program/
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 05:47:50
Document Index: 49105938

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 9', 'art 10', 'art 11', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 9', 'art 10', 'art 11']

insurance program Archives - Insurance Thought Leadership
December 7, 2015 Tarique Nageer	Leave a comment
Terrorist and other mass violence attacks, which occur with alarming regularity around the world, can threaten your people, operations and assets. Many companies look to insurance — mainly property terrorism and political violence coverage – to help manage the financial impact of these risks, which can include property damage and business interruption losses.
Property terrorism insurance provides coverage for the physical damage and business interruption that can result from acts that are motivated by politics, religion or ideology. Political violence insurance provides coverage related to war, civil war, rebellion, insurrection, coup d’état and other civil disturbances.
BIbusiness interruptioncivil warcoup d'étatenterprise risk managementermfinancesinsuranceinsurance industryinsurance programinsuredinsurermarshNageerpolicypolicy termpoliticsrebellionreligionrisk managementTarique Nageerterrorismviolence
September 26, 2011 Harry Griffith	Leave a comment
This is the fifth article in an 11-part series on Owner Controlled Insurance Programs. Preceding and subsequent articles in this series can be found here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Part 11.
Owner Controlled Insurance Programs From The Perspective Of Liability Claims (continued)
The first issue that the carrier and the policyholders must address is whether the loss resulted in “covered damage.” However, with an Owner Controlled Insurance Program, the analysis with regard to the particular insured is critical. There are numerous exclusions in the commercial general liability coverage form that apply differently, depending on whether the named insured enrolled contractor is an owner, general contractor, or subcontractor. The following exclusions illustrate why the policy may provide coverage or not, depending on which insured is seeking coverage:
a) Expected or Intended Injury
“Bodily injury” or “property damage” expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured …
Use of the phrase “the insured” refers to the insured seeking coverage. This phrase is contrasted to an exclusion that applies to an injury which is expected or intended from the standpoint of “an” or “any” insured, which would preclude coverage entirely under the policy if an insured or any insured intended the act. (See, e.g., National Union Fire Insurance Company vs. Lynette C. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1073 — a wife who negligently failed to prevent molestation by her husband was covered; Fire Insurance Exchange vs. Altieri (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1352 — parents sued in connection with their son’s arson of a school building.) The phrase “the insured” also is contrasted to exclusions that apply to “you,” which is the named insured. In the context of an Owner Controlled Insurance Program, where virtually every contractor is an insured, particular attention has to be paid to whether the claims of “supervision,” “vicarious liability,” or other non-direct liability could create coverage where the exclusions apply to “the insured.”
For example, in a claim that a contractor’s employee intentionally damaged another contractor’s work, the employee would be an insured, but the exclusion would bar coverage. His employer, assuming it was enrolled, would likely be a named insured; the exclusion would not apply to the employer, or any other enrolled contractor on the project.
A second example is the contractual liability exclusion, which provides:
“Bodily injury” or “property damage” for which the insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to liability for damages: …
(2) Assumed in a contract or agreement that is an “insured contract” …
The typical construction project contains indemnity flowing uphill in favor of the owner and general contractor. The liability of the owner or general contractor is generally passed down to the lowest level subcontractor.
Under contractual liability coverage, the Owner Controlled Insurance Program assumes every enrolled contractor’s indemnity obligations upward to the general contractor and owner. Contractual liability coverage allows owners/sponsors to settle claims with third parties and seek recovery from responsible subcontractors under the indemnity agreement. Thus, the insurance company must be mindful that any enrolled contractor may be both an insured as well as a claimant against the downhill subcontractors for any uncovered damages.
Damage to Project Work
The next series of exclusions are those dealing with damage to the work which is the subject of the Owner Controlled Insurance Program:
1) Property you own, rent or occupy; …
5) That particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf or performing operations, if the “property damage” arises out of those operations; or
6) That particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed on it.
Paragraph 6 of this exclusion does not apply to “property damage” included in the “Products-Completed Operations Hazard.”
“Property Damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it, and included in the “Products-Completed Operations Hazard.”
This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor.1
With regard to property damage claims arising out of “operations” (as distinct from “completed operations”), Exclusion “j.” is critical. In light of the “separation of insureds” condition, Exclusion j(1) would exclude coverage to the program sponsor for damages occurring to the construction project itself. (Assuming the sponsor is the owner.)
Exclusions j(5) and j(6) preclude coverage for damage to the construction project, but not entirely. Viewing the construction project from the standpoint of a general contractor, the entire project is “real property” on which the named insured (defined alternatively as “you”) or its subcontractors are performing operations. As to the owner or general contractor, virtually any damage would be excluded if it is within the basic scope of the construction project and the project is not completed.
However, each enrolled contractor must be viewed separately. If there is an allegation of damage caused by a subcontractor to work other than its own, this exclusion would not bar coverage. An example would be a residential developer with an Owner Controlled Insurance Program covering its projects that experiences a fire at a home under construction caused by the negligence of the roofer. As to the owner/developer, exclusion j. precludes coverage entirely. As to the roofer, exclusion j. only precludes coverage for damage to the roofer’s own work, but not resulting property damage caused by the roofer, i.e., the burned down home.
This scenario constitutes the primary overlap with builders risk coverage. The owner/ general contractor may pursue a subcontractor for negligence arising out of performance of work under its contract, and the subcontractor’s liability will be covered by the Owner Controlled Insurance Program. This gap presents an exposure to the liability Owner Controlled Insurance Program insurer for the builders risk deductible (since the amount is not covered by builders risk insurance).
This scenario also illustrates that for owners or insurance companies, the proper analysis is to review any “operations” loss — those that occur while the project is under construction — first from the perspective of the responsible contractor (from the bottom up) rather than from the perspective of the owner (from the top down).
1 The terms “you” and “your” refer to the named insured, not to anyone qualifying as an insured.
casualty insuranceclaims managementGriffithHarry Griffithinsuranceinsurance industryinsurance lawinsurance programliabilityliability claimsowner controlledproperty insurance
September 25, 2011 Harry Griffith	Leave a comment
This is the fourth article in an 11-part series on Owner Controlled Insurance Programs. Preceding and subsequent articles in this series can be found here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Part 11.
Owner Controlled Insurance Programs From The Perspective Of Liability Claims
An Owner Controlled Insurance Program general liability policy is, in most respects, similar to the industry standard general liability policy. An Owner Controlled Insurance Program claim is analyzed by taking the same systematic approach that is used with other insurance claims. Companies and insureds alike should resist the temptation to treat the Owner Controlled Insurance Program differently and/or disregard the policy language. Only in taking consistent approaches will the insurance company make sure that the most appropriate legal and business decisions are made.
From a legal perspective, the insurance company will be questioned on its policy interpretation and claims handling. The insurer’s obligation to the insured to defend and indemnify is measured by the policy as issued. Coverage under the policy is not based on side agreements, or understandings between the sponsor, the broker, and the underwriters. If there are unintended claims being paid, the underwriters need to be alerted and the policy language changed.
An insurance company can waive reliance on a restrictive policy and provide greater benefits than the contract provides. Waller v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1. However, the company may not unilaterally narrow the coverage and provide less than that provided by the policy. The exception to this rule is, of course, if there is proof that the policy as issued failed to comply with the mutual intent of the parties, in which case the policy may be reformed. (See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 3399; Truck v. Wilshire Insurance (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 553.) The following are some of the highlights of the commercial general liability form that are particularly applicable to construction claims involving Owner Controlled Insurance Programs.
A general liability policy contains a condition, titled “Separation of Insureds.” That provision provides:
Except with respect to the limits of insurance, and any rights and duties specifically assigned in this coverage part to the first Named Insured, this insurance applies:
a) As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured; and
b) Separately to each Insured against whom claim is made or “suit” is brought.
In the typical Owner Controlled Insurance Program, each contractor and subcontractor qualifies as a “named insured.” The insurance company must view each named insured separately, as if that contract were the only contract to apply. Each named insured under the policy is given equal coverage. The carrier’s duty to provide a defense and indemnity exists separate and distinct from every other contractor under the policy. Each named insured has an obligation to tender the loss to the insurer and must cooperate with the insurer in the investigation of the claim or suit, and in its own defense.
casualty insuranceclaims managementHarry Griffithinsuranceinsurance industryinsurance lawinsurance programowner controlledproperty insurance