When my plumbing contractor husband recently renewed his general liability coverage, he asked our agent if he would have coverage if his employee installed a gas water heater and it later leaked, injuring someone in his customer’s household. His agent said, “Probably not,” based on the total pollution exclusion. Case law regarding what is and…
The Coronavirus created many growth opportunities for today’s commercial and residential contractors. Now is the time for agents to query their contracting clients to ensure their clients have made no material changes in their operations. Professional liability exposures can arise, especially when contractors begin new lines of work.
If you’ve ever heard that a crushed grape was considered a pollutant, you need to read this report.
Insurance Services Office (ISO) has introduced four new earth movement exclusions with effective dates of 12/1/19. Three are designed for use with the commercial general liability (CGL) coverage parts; and one is for use with the owners and contractors protective liability (OCP) coverage part. These are extremely dangerous endorsements if used improperly.
Decisions addressing the applicability of exclusions j.(5) and j.(6), given their often fact-intensive nature, are sometimes complex. But not MTI, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Company, No-17-6206 (10th Cir. 2019). It is simple and clearly explained. And that’s why the decision could become a go-to one for courts confronting the double Js.
Insurance carriers may now have boundaries by which the “absolute” pollution exclusion can be applied, at least in Washington state. But the boundaries are pretty well laid out by two different court decisions based on efficient proximate cause. This article links to other pollution exclusion articles as well.
The California Appeals Court recently ruled on the application of the CGL’s j(5) and j(6) exclusion in regard to construction defect cases. This article highlights the key findings in the case of Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc.
The “absolute pollution exclusion” may be the most misunderstood and misapplied exclusion in ISO’s commercial general liability policy. Carrier are misapplying for one of two reasons: 1) they really don’t understand it; or 2) they are looking for a way to deny a claim. Either way, shame on them for torturing the policy to affect…
Amazingly claims adjusters still believe the commercial general liability’s (CGL’s) “absolute” pollution exclusion is, in fact, absolute. Bizarre stories abound of claim denials arising out of misapplications of the exclusion. Some accounts are myths and legends, but some are all too real. This article details the “howevers” in the CGL’s absolute pollution exclusion that makes…
You insure a residential painting contractor. Many of his customers give him access to their homes when they are not around. What if he damages the premises while having sole access to the home? Does the ISO CGL policy’s “CCC” exclusion apply?
