Insurance Journal Forums

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This is simpler than it seems. If the GL policy is on an Occurrence form than the date of loss (ie. the date of bodily injury or property damage) determines which carrier pays the claim. It doesn't matter when a product was manufactured or a house built, the date of loss is the trigger.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I don't know who disagreed with you, but they are wrong. And if a claim was denied it had nothing to do with the date of loss during an occurrence policy term.

Regarding a move to claims made, any occurrence policies written in the past no longer have any exposure unless a claim pops up that OCCURRED during the occurrence policy term. For the claims made policy to apply, the claim needs to be made during the policy term and the loss must occur after the retroactive date. The date a house was built or a product manufactured has NOTHING to do with it. The trigger is always the date of loss (BI or PD) for an occurrence policy and the date the claim was made for the claims made policy.

(FYI - I have 40 years of commercial experience and numerous professional designations. I'm not a newbie spouting opinions.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I did receive and reply to your private post. I won't copy here since you indicated you didn't want details in the open thread. Please note that "Prior Acts" has nothing to do with GL coverage, even on a claims made policy. I would love to see a copy of the policy in question and claim details.

I don't know how an insurance company can be confused on how a Retro Date applies. It has nothing to do with when a product is manufactured or sold. I have dealt with policies (both occurrence and claims made) that have had products/completed operations exclusions for products manufactured prior to a specific date. This has been for companies that have made an Asset Only purchase of another company and the underwriter did not want to cover the products already made by the prior company. But you indicated there were no exclusions on the policy in question. I'm confused on what grounds they denied the claim.