Forums

Agree about the DP-1. The GC would be responsible for the subs since the GC engaged the subs. Stuff flows downhill. 

About the property adjuster working an auto claim... we all have a duty to disclose honestly in advance our level of skills, expertise and competencies to a client.  Having given a client a summary of limitations, and if the client still desires to retain us, then the burden / risk shifts to the client.

For example, if someone works in a distant city which has few adjusters, the client may take the position that the risk related to retaining a warm body with limited skills is better than potential dis-service to the Insured by taking forever to get an experienced adjuster in the loop. Client/carrier is then responsible for screw ups, but adjuster is responsible for increasing his/her ongoing education and experience in this sub-specialty so that he/she is increasingly competent.

Now where does a contractor purchase care custody and control insurance to cover property they are working on. I have read turn in to your carrier and have them pay then subrogate against the sub-contractor twice in this topic. The boadest liability policy excludes care, custody and control and "your work" as long as you are on this job. Please stick to roof claims and don,t give advise on tort or contract liability claoms. please help the new people, do not spread this Pelosi around.

Posted By Ray Hall on 28 Mar 2010 06:48 PM

Now where does a contractor purchase care custody and control insurance to cover property they are working on. I have read turn in to your carrier and have them pay them subrogate against the sub-contractor twice in this topic. The boadest liability policy excludes care, custody and control and "your work" as long as you are on this job. Please stick to roof claims and don,t give bad advise on tort or contract liability claims. please help the new people, do not spread this Pelosi around.

Just have a casualty underwriter give you a weeks course on CGL coverage, before you mention subrogation again.

Bad brakes = no coverage

Result of bad brakes accident = coverage

The garage liability policy is specific for auto repair shops and all the covered claims are completed operations or product liability. The contractors policy that is required is a Commercial General Liability policy that has the above 2 coverage's and possibly liquor liability along with premises and operations. Many of the claims fall under the operations of a contractor and are excluded by very specific language.... any thing in the possesion of a worker in excluded and only when the final work is completed does completed operations come into play.

Most of the bad things that happen while constrction is going on may be covered under an inland marine builders risk for first party and some 3rd party claims.

An insurance company has no right to subrogate unless the insured gives them the permission. The right to subrogate can be waived by the insured if its done in writing before the accident. If an insuror pays a loss that is not covered by its contract of insurance, its assigment of subrogation rights from the insured is worthless paper.

Most Oil & Gas operators purchase insurance on a well in the international market. It may cover all the cost to indemnify the operator for the $$ spent until the well is lost downhole from a blow out. Also the cost to contain and control the wild well. Also tthe redrill cost. The pollution. The tort liability.The burned up rig, platform etc. I had 4 years of world wide experience in this niche biz, because of my 10 years oil patch and 20 years of liability work.

Ray:

According to an insurance lawyer I spoke with recently about this issue, a wrap CGL policy has no "your work" exclusion. This type of policy reduces subrogation actions as it puts liability risk squarely in the lap of the carrier as opposed to between the GC and the subs.

Over the past 20 years, wraps have reportedly become the predominant method of liability insurance for construction projects. While they began as being more commercial in nature, they are now used for many smaller mixed use and residential projects. I have seen several large cases where project liability has been covered by the GC's carrier due to "his" and "his" sub's work. I'd appreciate any comments from the lawyers here to see if this information differs from others.

Please see below:

http://www.gglt.com/CM/Newsletters/...urance.pdf

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/n...105162.htm

http://www.constructionweblinks.com.../wrap.html


 

I will have to check this out. If the coverage attorney is refering to on going normal mishaps during contruction passed on to the builders risk{wrap) I would agree. Liability coverage is for 3rd party claimants or liabilitys one of the parties contracted for. I will be back.... sometime in the future.

I carry GL when doing construction. If I was not working on the 2nd floor and the cabinet fell over, it was not in my care, custody, or control and should be covered by my ins.  However, if part of the job was to move it to another room to paint, and I dropped it, that would be questionable but probably covered because I was not working on the cabinet.  I have had only one occurrance of this.  I installed a new bathroom then my tile sub proceeded to tile around the shower walls without protecting the tub, walking on the broken tile.  I had to replace the tub.  I had installed it so it was in my care, custody and control.

There have been a few significant court decisions recently, covering the gc when the sub did damage and also when a defective construction claim is made against the gc for bad work done by a sub.  If the sub has insurance they will probably subrogate, but otherwise, the gc's carrier picks up the cost of the claim.  This may be the "wrap around" mentioned earlier, but did not quite follow what was said about it.

Please give me the language in your policy that gives you coverage on the cabinet on the 2nd floor that falls when you are downstairs working on another cabinet, as long as you are in this house working it does not sound like completed operations to me by your description, whose care, custody and control was the cabinet intrusted to. Also read the completed operation clause, you will learn something. Also get a good CPCU broker to explain the perils of contracting. Buy builders risk it covers some of the bad things that happen. Some.... not all. sorry Rick, I have to look out for the worms, sometime.

Ray, the bathtub scenerio I was referring to would not have been a completed operations claim if that is what you are referring to, so I am a little unclear on what you said.  In your example above, why did the owner file on their dwelling policy instead of filing a claim against the plumbers liability insurance?  Was he denying fault in the damage?

My liability for general contracting would cover me for accidental damage caused by me or my workers so long as the damaged item was not in my CC&C, although I have never investigated to the depth of determining if a roof was in my CC&C if I had a worker re-building a chimney and a load of bricks fell and slid down the roof, tearing up the shingles.  If they fell on the car below, I am certain my liability would cover it.  What is your opinion of coverage for the roof damage?

A house would not be in your care custody and control if your workers were not in the ccc of a project like a complete remodel. If the painter spills paint on the new floor the project is not complete etc.A two party builders risk is the only way to cover these "bad things that happens. If a contractor rents a cherry picker etc. he must have an equipment floater on his owned and leased equipt.

The CGL coverage is to pay damages to third party,s for negligence (torts) not first partys to a contract for  "bad thinks". The garage liability policy is much broader(and not in this discussion) A very trouble some claim is the roofer strips off the old roof and the inside is wetted down big time by a thunder shower. The HO carrier pays for damage to the structure,{ but not the contents} under the A peril "risk of loss" but turns down the C (upp) not a named peril. Then submits to AF (arbitrration forms). Af hears the case and rules for respondent as no coverage exit , absent specific insurance or contract.