Insurance Journal Forums

trotter wrote:I AM IN CALIFORNIA DEALING WITH A CONTRACTOR (GEN. LIB) AND HIS ABILITY TO DO WORK FOR LOCAL MALL.

MALL WANTS PARTNERS, PARENTS, MOMS, STEP CHILD, NAMED AS ADD. INS. AND OF COURSE INS. CO WONT OFFER SUCH BROAD ADD. INS. WORDING. MOST OF THE TIME I AM ABLE TO WORK IT OUT WHERE EACH PARTY BENDS AND ADD. INS. ENDORSEMENT IS PROCESSED BUT ANYONE GOT ANY GOOD WAYS IN SELLING THIS SITUATION. I GOT MONEY IN HAND TO BIND COVERAGE BUT COMPANY I GOT QUOTE FROM WONT COMPLY WITH MALL'S A I REQUEST SO I GOT NO VALUE!!


THANKS

TROTTER

What is the true "partners, employees" etc wording?

I am surprised your carrier will not honor the AI request. Do you have other quotes in hand? Many E & S markets will allow broad AI's, perhaps you may have to go that route.

Good luck!

Trotter, which insurer are you dealing with here?

It could be one of those E&S carriers who have a limit to which they will go with the breadth of AI's. However, if the insurer is a risk retention group or one of the E&S carriers who have limits, you should change carriers if this is an issue of possible frequency.

Realistically, this is a false issue. The number or breadth of AI's doesn't increase the policy limits so unless the required AI wording opens a can of worms the insure should give a hang about agreeing to or issuing it.

I don't think it is a false issue. Would you want someone that you don't know to become your partner?

That's kind of what happens when you grant AI status. The AI has the rights of an insured, including the right to a defense from the insurer and the right to file a claim directly against the policy. Defense costs are clearly outside the policy limit, which may not be the case when filing a claim for indemnity under the policy's contractual liability coverage.

But in another way you are correct that it should be a non-issue. Over the years the breadth of coverage given to an AI has been gradually eroded. The claims trigger has changed in most, but not all, states. Maybe the insurer isn't using the most up to date ISO endorsement form? I do believe that the latest ISO form states: the named insured must be at least partially responsible for the loss.

So maybe you have an insurance company that hasn't kept current with the changes.