Limited Designated Operations Endorsements Coverage Gaps: Myths And Realities – Part II

By | December 23, 2008

Yesterday was the first in this two-part series on limited designated operations endorsements. Discussed and corrected were the assertions that:
• Coverage is reduced by attachment of the endorsement;
• The endorsement limits the activities in which the insured can be involved;
• Coverage will be denied and defense will not be provided if a non-listed activity causes a loss; and
• The insured does not have the opportunity to add exposures at audit.

Two more myths are reviewed in today’s post.
1) The insured does not have access to the CGL code descriptions to make sure all their operations are covered; and
2) Coverage provided to the additional insured is compromised.

The series will conclude with the reasons for and the realities of the Limitation of Coverage to Designated Operations (or similarly titled) endorsement.

Readers will also have the opportunity to participate in an important survey about this type of endorsements; the findings could be very helpful.

Click here to read the concluding article.

About Christopher J. Boggs

Boggs, CPCU, ARM, ALCM, LPCS, AAI, APA, CWCA, CRIS, AINS, is a veteran insurance educator. He is Executive Director, Big I Virtual University of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America. He can be reached at chris.boggs@iiaba.net. More from Christopher J. Boggs

Was this article valuable?

Here are more articles you may enjoy.