General Cont wants AI on auto and Excess

[etimer]

I have a someone that received a request from a general contractor and the GC wants AI status on the BOP and the Umbrella.
Client has the broad form AI form that grants CERTIFICATE HOLDER IS RECOGNIZED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED ONLY ON GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY. ALL JOBS "WHERE UNDER WRITTEN CONTRACT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS"

The Umbrella is a form that flows to anyone that is AI under the GL. Under the BOP AI isn't needed because of the “Who Is an Insured" part of the BOP.

Now the UL isn't going to manuscript an AI status on the BOP or the Umbrella because it isn't needed. I am not going to mark the Acord showing that AI is granted on the BOP or Umbrella because the GC is not written on the policy.

I've told the administrative person at the GC that what she is requesting is not needed but she is standing her ground. My IRMI texts all agree with my stance.

BAP addresses insured status for the named insured’s indemnitees builds such coverage into the form itself, you do not need an endorsement --- BOP is automatically in compliance with an indemnitee’s demand for additional insured status,as long as the indemnitee is someone who is liable for the named insured’s conduct.

Any ideas how to get the GC to accept?

[Big Dog]

The COI needs to state that the Umbrella is following form for all underlying coverages and endorsements.

As to the BAP, if the policy wording already includes any "indemnities" as additional insured, then it shouldn't be a problem showing the GC as AI.

If the GC still has fits of not being named as AI on the Umbrella, ask for a conference call that includes their insurance broker. If their insurance broker has any credulity, they'll confirm that Commercial Umbrellas are following form as respects to the underlying coverages, including AI endorsements, and that there is no need for a separate endorsement.

That is...if their agent is credible. I'll leave it at that.

[etimer]

The GC was shown a copy of the Umbrella where it says -- "If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance required by the contract, less any amounts payable by any "underlying insurance" Additional insured coverage provided by this insurance will not be broader than coverage provided by the “underlying insurance".

So I am not sure what they think a check mark is going to give them. I worry when in the face of fact, people make more requests because that is a flag that says the GC thinks the check mark is giving them greater coverage than what is stated in policy. The original COI did have this on it "Any entity that is covered as an additional insured on the underlying GL policy
is automatically considered an additional insured for purposes of excess/umbrella coverage."

My underwriter isn't going to add them as AI on the BAP because he said they are already covered and it would be redundant. I agree and sent the part of the policy that shows the GC would have coverage.

The COI is for the GC files and the Sub has not done work for them in 2 years. Wonder if the GC isn't aware of the wording
"WHERE UNDER WRITTEN CONTRACT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS" . I bet the GC think that if the Sub shows up at on a site look at a potential job, that the GC is automatically afforded AI status on the GL and umbrella.

Looking at a contractors site I saw this - "If your agent makes a mistake and does not supply the certificate soon enough, it could feasibly throw you into breach of contract with your general contractor, because you are unable to man the job when you are supposed to because you have not provided the certificate of insurance. " IMHO it is wrong for that site to not tell the reader that you need to have the needed insurance requirements in force before making the request for a COI. I get my COI's out the same day.

My mantra to my clients is DO NOT sign a contract until I read the insurance requirements and see if you satisfy those requirements. Yep I err on the conservative side.

All people care about is seeing something on a COI and it doesn't matter if it is true or not.

"A California broker took $4.6 million in premiums while issuing false insurance certificates to companies, according to the guilty plea in the case against Mitchell B. Zogob, who is now set to spend 10 years in state prison."

For the moment my client said forget about it.