We have a manufacturing client that uses a temporary staffing agency for some of their employment needs. In this particular situation, the worker was provided by the staffing agency for a temporary to permanent position. The contract requires the staffing agency to have the Alternate Employer Endorsement and list our client as an Alternate Employer. This worker was injured and collected WC from the staffing agency and then filed an action against our client. The CGL carrier has denied the claim citing the WC/Employer's liability exclusion in the CGL and stating that the injured party is an employee as defined by "leased worker". They advised that this injured party doesn't fit the definition of a "temporary worker", which is defined as a person who is furnished to you to substitute for a permanent "employee" on leave or to meet seasonal or short-term workload conditions. Since this injured party was furnished for a temporary to permanent position, they didn't exactly fit into this definition. Ultimately, the Alternate Employer endorsement should protect our client, but this coverage gap exists if that endorsement isn't procured. Any suggestions on arguments for coverage under the CGL? This is a very common scenario for many employers.

Pennsylvania Subscriber

The CGL defines temporary and leased workers as follows: