You had talked about in class, Damage to Rented Premises, and I do understand the concept with the CP0040, for the tenant. Let's look at when you have one package policy, where the owner and tenant are one and the same (ownership is the same just different corporations). If I have both named insureds under one policy, will this present the same problem with lack of coverage? Will the Damage to Rented Premises even come into play or the CP 0040, or maybe the lease agreement will be the deciding factor?

One other question, when writing a workers' compensation policy, would you also list the building owner as a named insured under this policy even if they had no payroll? Let's say you have this policy under the tenant business name, but the ownership is the same as the building owner. What if the building owner hires someone to do a job, the person gets hurt and does not have workers' compensation? If a claim occurs they would try to go to the GL carrier and I think it would be paid. Is it better to have both companies on the workers' compensation and have the claim paid there if the companies are combinable?

Related: Read Amrhein's previous column "Livin' Large."

That is a lot of information, along with several different questions that more or less follow a logical stream of consciousness. Not an infrequent occurrence when dealing with insureds and prospects. And unlike stories written by great novelists, few folks in our world know to begin with the key. The trouble comes when you want to offer a clear response. Without knowing the key, how do you unlock this plethora of possibilities? Do you grab one strand and begin pulling, hoping to unwind the tangle? Answer them all in order? Pick out the most interesting? Just dodge the bullet entirely by passing this on to someone else (or in government circles, appoint a committee)?

Consider a mental gimmick: in the context of our discussion, ask yourself "What would Dickens do?" Where in this particular insurance tale is the "death of Marley" key that potentially opens the lock to "something wonderful" coming from your response?

The key is definitely there—it simply doesn't appear until nearly the end of the second sentence. Current or former English teachers will no doubt enjoy the irony that the key to this particular lock appears in a device (a parenthetical) designed to reflect an afterthought, something easily removed while still rendering the remainder of the conversation intelligible. How many times have you had a claim discussion where the insured literally threw in as if a meaningless afterthought the key fact of the entire coverage decision? ("I probably should have added my teenage son to the rental car agreement after the counter guy told me he wouldn't be covered, but the additional fee is ridiculous. Anyway, so I'm asleep while my son is taking his turn behind the wheel...")

Let me show you how the email analysis and answers change if I reword the beginning of the email as Dickens might:

Although the building's owner and tenant are controlled by the same person, there is no doubt that two separate corporations are legally two entirely different entities and must be treated as such. This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the answer I am going to relate.

Related: Read the column by Chris Amrhein "Three Lessons Learned."

Once this legal reality is understood, the rest of the answers become clear. Basically, they are the same as you would respond anytime you have two entirely different legal entities involved in a lease or WC scenario. For example, following that key thought, here is my take on the above email:

1. The lease agreement is important in that it clarifies any responsibility the tenant may have to the landlord for damage to the rented premises.
2. If the lease holds the tenant responsible for damage to the building only if such damage arises from the negligence of the tenant, then Damage to Rented Premises steps in for negligent fire, and the CP 00 40 - Legal Liability Coverage Form is used to add any additional perils. Because the landlord's policy already covers the building, what you really are looking at here is a subrogation claim against the tenant from the landlord's carrier. Because legal principles typically prevent a carrier from subrogating back against its own insured, when you name the tenant on the same policy as the landlord you eliminate the carrier's subrogation rights against the tenant, and that solves the problem otherwise addressed by the CP 00 40.
3. If the lease holds the tenant responsible for any damage to building, negligent or not (for example, under a triple-net lease), then the standard solution is naming landlord and tenant on the same policy, with the same elimination of subrogation and the need for the CP 00 40 as above.
4. As to the WC situation, don't let the landlord/tenant issue muddy the waters. Under standard WC rules, you cannot have more than one entity named on the same work comp policy unless they are combinable under common ownership rules.
5. Combinable or not, the real question is should each separate legal entity have WC coverage? Seems from this scenario, the obvious answer for the tenant is "yes," while for the building owner is "it depends."
6. I say "depends" because the technical answer is based upon the legal relationship between the owner and that person "hired." If by law they are considered an "employee" of the owner, then the GL excludes any injury to an employee, and will be no help; only a WC policy will pay for the injury. If the person is legally an "independent contractor" for the owner, then WC will not apply, and the CGL is where protection from suit is found.

Moral of the tale: In every dealing with folks, find the key, and what otherwise may seem random or even confusing details all fall into place. In this scenario, it's legal entities; in Christmas, it's a birth. In both cases all the rest of the details then take their rightful place as method or custom or color, not meaning.

Related: Read another Amrhein column "Back-to-School Blues."

Having begun with his beginning, my wish for you this Christmas is to truly embrace what Dickens clearly believed (and I concur) was the perfect ending:

"...and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God Bless Us, Every One!"