What I'm about to ask I think is a case of my seeing the forest too clearly and missing the trees. I'll be interested in the opinions of other readers as this forest is just getting more prominent.
I have an account which performs routine janitorial maintenance work for commercial facilities. One of their clients has a large climate controlled room for their computer/server system which links with a national data network of sensitive information. My client washes the windows inside and outside that room and washes the floor inside using water, cleaner and brooms -- his work is not high tech.
My client is very concerned that if one of his employees unintentionally causes damage to a computer or server or if his employee, again unintentionally, causes damage to the room's climate control [breaking a window, spilling a bucket of water, leaving a door open, and the like] he will be sued for unimaginable amounts of money. He carries a GL limit of 1/2/2 and has a $5MM Umbrella.
My contention is that he does have coverage under his GL for tangible Property Damage to the computers/servers if that damage is unintentionally caused by an employee cleaning the windows or the floors because only the windows or floors are in the employee's care custody & control, not the computers/servers. On the other hand, since the room is walled off and specially climate controlled it also occurs to me that perhaps those walls would stand to make the entire room in his care custody & control. I know that that exclusion J(5) of the ISO GL exclusions addresses that "particular part of REAL property" which is why I am concerned about the true scope of the insured's ccc in this instance.
Since damage to the computers/servers would also damage data, I am not particularly concerned about that aspect since the data is not tangible PD, or even PD at all.
My insured's client, the owner of the data center. is satisfied with his total liability limit but that does not clarify the issue. That just means that I really have to address the correct nuances of this issue in more depth and get it right.
Anybody have any thoughts about this: scope of ccc? coverage?? if not GL, then where???
Many thanks.
A facility maintenance account question
Moderators: Josh, independent guy
Forum rules
Tip: If you are posting a market request, include the state abbreviation in your post title to get better responses.
Tip: If you are posting a market request, include the state abbreviation in your post title to get better responses.
-
doyourhomework
- Insurance Journal Addict
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:05 am
- Location: Orange County in SoCal
-
mica.cooper
- Insurance Journal Addict
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:56 pm
Re: A facility maintenance account question
I think your worried about the wrong things...
If the person damages a server, it might be worth $500-$50,000, probably more like $1500. The real damages are in loss of use. I saw a server for a national foods company go down due to a cyber attack from India. (The backup was unable to take over because the attack also took out the facilities routers) The loss of use meant that over 500 semi trucks did not ship their loads that day. The cost was close to a million dollars for a single server loss of use.
...they are most certainly liable, and that would be my concern.
If the person damages a server, it might be worth $500-$50,000, probably more like $1500. The real damages are in loss of use. I saw a server for a national foods company go down due to a cyber attack from India. (The backup was unable to take over because the attack also took out the facilities routers) The loss of use meant that over 500 semi trucks did not ship their loads that day. The cost was close to a million dollars for a single server loss of use.
...they are most certainly liable, and that would be my concern.