May 16, 2016

Our client, a public entity, issued a permit to a business for the erection and maintenance of a sign which overhangs the public right-of-way. Additional insured status is required on the permittee's CGL form. Instead of issuing a CG 20 13 which is designed for this situation, the insurer issued a CG 20 12. Can this be considered an operation performed by the named insured or on its behalf, or is coverage for this situation only provided by the CG 20 13?

Ohio Subscriber

Endorsement CG 20 12 amends the CGL form by adding any state or governmental agency shown in the schedule as an additional insured; CG 20 13 does the same. However, there is a difference. The big difference between CG 20 13 and CG 20 12 is that 20 12 provides additional insured status for operations on and off the named insured's premises, while 20 13 is for on premises operations. Also, 20 12 does not provide completed operations coverage while 20 13 is silent on this subject.

So, if the intent of the named insured is to provide additional insured coverage just for the erection of the sign on its premises and no off premises coverage, CA 20 13 is the endorsement to choose.

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis