One of many LinkedIn Teams I subscribe to is on Insurance Coverage, the place I discovered this put up final week: Massachusetts Superior Court Decision Addresses Additional Insured Coverage The court docket choice is mentioned on this weblog put up from the Anderson Krieger legislation agency: Does an Additional Insured Get Coverage When the Named Insured Has Done Nothing Wrong? I can't rely the variety of occasions in an e mail, article, seminar, or webinar once I've identified that, below ISO AI endorsements since 2004 (and most provider AI endorsements I've seen), the AI has no protection on a named insured's CGL coverage except the named insured has SOME liability (i.e., negligence, fault, and many others.). In different phrases, there isn't a protection for the AI's sole negligence. Nevertheless, as Craig Stanovich factors out within the Linkedin dialogue, that's not what the coverage kinds truly say. Protection is contingent upon loss "brought about, in complete or partially, by" the named insured and others performing on behalf of the named insured. That will sound like a nice line, however requiring some a part of the loss to be "attributable to" the named insured is completely different from requiring negligence of the named insured and this court docket case illustrates that. Phrases matter. Grammar issues. Punctuation issues. That is but another excuse why we can not generalize about coverage protection. The language have to be learn and expressed exactly
0 Comments