Insurance Journal Forums

too bad ISO can't rewrite these policy's in plain english...that would remove all the lawyers

Came across this discussion while attempting to pick apart the "your work" et al debacle!

Paragraph (6) of this exclusion does not apply to "property damage" included in the "products-completed operations hazard."

Does this apply to both the General and Sub's and also does it include "your work" or just resultant damage?????

Furthermore, is it for faulty workmanship ("Incorrectly performed on it") only and does not apply to sudden and accidental?

That excerpt has always made me scratch my head

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

NIce thread. The way I explain it is that "your work" as it pertains to property should be addressed in Property coverage. Installation Floater, Builders Risk etc. I agree with other posters also that CGL is not a warranty product.

I'm glad this thread was resurrected, as it has caused me confusion in the past.

BHoh wrote:First question: How do you explain why this is not covered?

Explain that a CGL policy is not intended to guarantee or warrant the insured work. It protects the insured when they are held liable for damage caused by their work.

Second question: Isn't it in a contractor's best interest then, from a risk management standpoint, to subcontract out as much as possible? If your answer is yes, then why do so many carriers shy away from contractors subbing out more than a certain percentage?

It could be construed that way. However, a GC obviously gives up a significant amount of control when subbing out work. He typically has little or no say in how work is performed or who the sub hires to perform the work how much experience they have etcetera...

If it "protects the insured when they are held liable for damage caused by their work", then if the "work" that caused the damage was the electrical why wouldn't that be the only thing excluded? If they did 100% of the job themselves with no subs, and they wired one tiny thing wrong that burned the whole building down = zero coverage? (assuming no BI or PD of others) That just seems absolutely crazy to me.

I can agree with and go on with the explanation that the cost to rewire what was originally done incorrectly is not covered, but the resulting damage that it caused should be covered regardless if it was completed by the GC or a sub.

With regards to the 2nd question, it makes perfect sense for the company to shy away from GC's who sub out most because under the interpretations of the CGL in this thread, only that work done by a sub would be covered and any work done by the GC is not covered. So, hypothetically in this facetious case, the GC who does 100% all of his work is a cash cow for the company because they collect all the premium, the GC has direct supervision of all the work....AND they don't cover anything if something he performed was incorrect!

If that is really how the CGL policy is supposed to work, then God help the General Contractor. If you the policy you're paying $XX,XXX each year to actually cover you for what you do, you better sub out 100%. He's in the same kind of situation his poor insurance agent is in (everything you do says, "please sue me".)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX