Insurance Forums for the Property Casualty Insurance Industry
https://www.insurancejournal.com/forums/
https://www.insurancejournal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=784
As I understand it, you can place with a non-admitted carrier if the non-admitted carrier is offering some coverage that the admitted carrier is not.sylvia wrote:Tough choices for contractors, but I thought you couldn't place coverage through a non-admitted carrier if you had a quote by an admitted insurer? [/img]
Well, darnovak, I don't really know much about the situation in NY with respect to GL quite honestly (even though I'm originally from there years ago). I do know, however, that the Montrose decision affected the wording and availability of GL here in CA. If you are an agent in CA and write a lot of this stuff, then you do already know this which is why I didn't go into detail. I responded the way I did because your original response was tinged with sarcasm and tried to make my question look like that of an inexperienced, foolish beginner, which I am not. So I apologize for coming back at you that way. I still stand by my opinion that this is a good place to solicit other's opinions on topics such as these. With certain complex insurance issues, I think we can all stand to learn something.darnovak wrote:Rob: Sorry, I forgot to join the "everybody already knows this" club years ago. Here in NY we have absolutely no knowledge of anything important in the GL world so I apologize for asking for clarifications and definitions - too much to expect "at this place". Thanks for the reply. Message received.
Yes BUT you are in ARIZONA. Here is California its a different story due to Montrose. If you call Statewide, you will find that yes they write in multiple states but NOT California. Safeco will not write California contractors who have been involved in ANY type of NEW residential construction, not just tracts or condos. Hartford and AIG won't either. So, here in CA, there aren't lotsa markets for trade contractors. It is limited and hard to find an unmodified or restricted form or the appetites by the carriers vary in what they will accept.PCorathers wrote:I am sorry but there are lotsa of available markets for TRADE contractors. Statewide has Wilshire Insurance, they also have a preferred market Occidental, and a have a nonadmitted Lloyds. Superior Access has Safeco, Hartford, AIG and others. Colonial General has Scottsdale (admitted) and nonadmitted. I have NO trouble placing Trade contractors.
No I posted the original question and I'm from CA but no worries. I do business with most of the GA's you mentioned and they all have the usual markets. CA is a whole different animal. If you're curious about the effects of Montrose, you can read a blurb about it here:PCorathers wrote:The original ? topic was for AZ., That is topic I was commenting on. I'm not quite as familar with CA. I still hold a CA license (moved here from Los Angeles area) but don't keep up on the those markets, as much. Sorry for the confusion. I'm thinking some GA's there have some markets. Bliss and Glendon, London American, Swett and Crawford, Colemont?
Yes agreed. However when advising a customer I wanted to be able to say "collegues in the industry agree that this is the way to go". i.e. add some industry credence behind it.CN1 wrote:Long road to a pretty straightforward answer.
Thanks, VAAcctMgr! Yes I know about the known injury or damage and many companies have felt the need to take it further with the modifications to the definition of "occurrence". There aren't many admitted carriers here in CA that I know of that will write small contractors (I know of one) involved in any residential work so often non-admitted is the only choice and as you may know the deductible is typically per claim and a per occ deductible cannot be bought back. So sometimes the choices are the lesser of two evils unfortunately. Thanks for your input!VAAcctMgr wrote:Rob:
Just a note to say the Montrose Decision has affected the Contractor Market industry wide. ISO was very quick to create the Known Injury or Damage mandatory endorsement as a result.
Tough issue........I would write my contractor on admitted paper with the per occurrence deductible wording for property damage. The per claim deductible can be a nightmare if multiple parties are injured. How the deductible applies is probably the issue to be sure the contractor understands. It will affect his pocket (or bottom line) and if he doesn't understand fully, it could affect your bottom line.
Good luck. You're obviously an agent that cares about his clients!
Someone asked about why the concern between a "per claim" and "per occurrence" deductible. From first hand experience I can tell you that an overspray near a parking lot ended up with an $ 85,000 deductible instead of a $ 500 because there were 170 claims but only one occurrence.Rob wrote:Yes I agree. I guess I'm seeking assurances that it is the best way to go. Consider the premium being comparable and the deductible is $1000 instead of $500 and it is a per claim deductible.
Exactly one of my concerns. (Funny how I was mocked in a previous post for bringing up such "unimportant items like PD deductible"). Realizing there was a flaw in each of the policies (and noting that here in CA there isn't always the perfect alternative) one has to consider the lesser of two evils.mrmreff wrote:Someone asked about why the concern between a "per claim" and "per occurrence" deductible. From first hand experience I can tell you that an overspray near a parking lot ended up with an $ 85,000 deductible instead of a $ 500 because there were 170 claims but only one occurrence.Rob wrote:Yes I agree. I guess I'm seeking assurances that it is the best way to go. Consider the premium being comparable and the deductible is $1000 instead of $500 and it is a per claim deductible.