Analysis brought to you by the experts at FC&S Online, the recognized authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry. To find out more — or to have YOUR coverage question answered — visit the National Underwriter website, or contact the editors via Twitter: @FCSbulletins. |
Products liability endorsements
Question: Does the endorsement for Products/Completed Operations Hazard Redefined [CG 24 07 01 96; CG 24 07 01 96; CG 24 07 01 96] need to be attached to a Commercial General Liability (CGL) form that covers a school or other risks where on-premises serving of food takes place? I have heard that the endorsement is only needed when the insured has operations that involve "substantial" exposure to products hazard on the insured's own premises; but, just what does "substantial" mean?
— New York Subscriber
Answer: Endorsement CG 24 07 redefines the products-completed operations hazard to include products consumed on the premises where they are sold. The endorsement does not define or even use the term "substantial." In any case, if the insured is debating whether to use CG 24 07, the insured should not be thinking in a quantitative manner — that is, in a way that measures the need for the endorsement based on how much food or drink is consumed on the premises. The key point is whether the exposure to loss is substantial. The insured should decide whether it has an exposure to loss to such a degree that the possibility of a loss is not acceptable, monetarily or ethically. The exposure you describe, a school, should have the endorsement because the students consume the insured's products on the insured's premises, with the potential for a huge loss. There is no iron-clad rule for an insured to follow in deciding whether to use CG 24 07, but a common sense, risk management approach to coverage, an approach that recognizes the risks and loss probabilities unique to the insured, is required. It should be noted that the CGL form, even without CG 24 07, will give the insured coverage for a bodily injury claim based on the claimant's eating the insured's food on the premises. However, the definition of a products-completed operations hazard on the CGL form makes the claim subject to and applied to the insured's general aggregate limit. But if CG 24 07 is attached to the CGL form, changing the definition of products completed operations hazard, a claim arising out of consuming food or beverages on the insured's premises would be subject to the products-completed operations aggregate limit. Such an approach keeps the general aggregate and the products-completed operations limits separate and enhances the coverage that an insured has and needs. |
Coverage territory and product liability
Question: Our insured is a buying agent for AutoZone. The insured company purchases parts for AutoZone from a Chinese manufacturer. AutoZone takes possession of the goods at the port in China. From there, the items enter the U.S. through the port in Los Angeles. They clear customs and then are transported via truck to Mexico through Texas to be sold by AutoZone in Mexico. The question is: Would someone who bought the product in Mexico have any way to make a claim against our insured?
— Georgia Subscriber
Answer: What you have to check here is the definition of coverage territory in your policy. For example, in the standard CGL form, coverage territory can be all parts of the world if the injury or damage arises out of goods or products made or sold by the named insured in the United States, Puerto Rico and Canada. Of course, any lawsuit against the insured has to be filed in one of these same locations for responsibility to pay damages to be established. In your situation, if the definition of coverage territory is the same as that in the standard CGL form, the only way for there to be liability coverage would be if the products were made or sold in the United States and the injured party then sues in the U.S. From the way you describe the situation here, it appears that the insured does not make or sell the products in the U.S., so anyone injured after a sale in Mexico is not going to have the insured's policy pay for damages. Remember that this comment applies only to insurance coverage and not legal liability. So, the insured may well be sued and held liable in a Mexican lawsuit. But, the insurance policy that the insured has probably won't provide coverage, depending on the definition of coverage territory. |
Underground storage tanks
Question: My client owns some property that is currently leased to others who use the site as a small grocery store. If the tenants were to put in an underground storage tank for gasoline sales, would endorsement CG 24 15, the limited pollution liability extension endorsement, provide sufficient coverage for my client in the event of a pollution claim? Or, should we provide an underground storage tank policy for our client?
— Colorado Subscriber
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
