CG 20 10 11 85 and CG 20 37

Your response to industry hot topics.

Moderators: Josh, independent guy

Post Reply
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:53 am

CG 20 10 11 85 and CG 20 37

Post by etimer »

I still see contracts expressing their need for the CG 20 10 11 85 form and I ask...where have they been for the past 20 years?

Then some will ask for CG 20 37 but it can prove difficult to obtain. Many insurers are not ready to give up "put to its intended use" and I don't blame them. Also seen is a vanilla request for CG 20 37 but never specifying which CG 20 37.

Some contracts will ask for the CG 20 10 11 85 or its equivalent form? The only true "equivalent" form is the CG 20 10 11 85 so what part do they want equivalent? We can all guess and even when asked, they have no answer for who or what part they want.

Scheduling of each AI and each location is hazardous (could miss adding), time consuming and costs the insured extra money. The Broad Form AI solves the previous three but what about the "put to its intended use" clause? Is it in your Broad Form AI endorsement?

So the question is most insurers have opted not to provide such coverage - what do you personally do if you can not obtain an acceptable CG 20 37?

"Completed Operations (CG 20 37 07 04), that will provide the additional insured coverage for injury or damage that occurs after the work is completed—work that is included within the "products-completed operations hazard."
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: CG 20 10 11 85 and CG 20 37

Post by mightyquinn »

What state are you in?
"Free" ain't free
Josh Coyle
Insurance Journal Fan
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:05 pm

Re: CG 20 10 11 85 and CG 20 37

Post by Josh Coyle »

Sometimes it depends what the General Contractor will consider to be an "equivalent".

The CG 20 10 11 85 provides both ongoing operations and completed operations AI. So many GCs will accept the standard ISO CG 20 10 04 13 and CG 20 37 04 13 as "equivalent" or even a carrier's proprietary AI forms as long as they both are "ongoing operations" and "completed operations."

However, a "true" equivalent to the CG 20 10 11 85 does exist. The equivalent is the pairing of the CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01 forms. The primary reason the CG 20 10 11 85 was retired in the first place was it was extending completed operations coverage when the intent was to provide only ongoing operations. ISO came out with the CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01 in response. With two separate endorsements, carriers could choose whether or not to provide only ongoing operations, only completed operations, or both. As long as they are paired together, they should be viewed as a "true" equivalent. I have yet to see a GC requesting the CG 20 10 11 85 endorsement reject the pairing of the CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01 as a result.

Major caveat - many carriers will not provide the "equivalent" 10 01 editions either, because they are still very broad in coverage. The number of GCs still requesting a true equivalent as a result is rare, as their pool of subcontractors to choose from becomes much more limited. These AI endorsements may also be more expensive for the subcontractors to obtain, which is then built into their bid cost, so in the end the GC also has a more expensive project cost.
Post Reply