In reviewing the insurance requirements of a construction prequal statement, I saw the following question: “Will additional insured be granted on a CG 20 10 (11/85 or equivalent)”. The choices are yes or no. The technically correct answer: unless you have the 1985 version (does anyone still have this), there is no such animal as equivalent.
What most are asking for is additional insured for ongoing and completed operations. Chances are you have this. The old saying, “The Devil is in the Details” comes to mind here. The trick and the problem is not in providing ongoing and completed operations coverage, but it is in the definition of the coverage trigger.
In the 1985 version, coverage is triggered by “Liability arising out of ‘your work’ “
The newest version (07/04) has changed the coverage trigger using the following language. “But only with respect to liability for ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’ or ‘personal and advertising injury’ caused, in whole or in part, by:
1985 was very broad in 2 ways:
-Liability – without any definition of what the liability is covered (which could include many intended excluded liabilities such as pollution, employment practices).
-Arising out of your work. Without getting into the details of the definition of “your work”, the liability only had to show that it was a casual relationship with your work. You did not have to be the cause, it just had to arise from the work you did.
2004 is very specific as to what liabilities are covered and the scope of the coverage.
– The only coveragesextended to the additional insured are bodily injury, property damage, and personal and advertising injury. If you have limited pollution or employment practices or professional coverage, this will NOT be extended under these endorsements.
– The trigger is your acts or omissions of you or your subs. It has moved from a casual relationship to a very direct action (or lack of) in order for coverage to occur.
Okay, now that you are thoroughly bored (isn’t insurance 101 fun!) You are asking: “Okay, so what does this all mean to me?”
It means that you DO NOT have the 1985 equivalent and it does not exist.
The options remain to either put down yes and not be truthful (exposing you to uninsured litigation because you said you did and didn’t), or you can put down “no” and not qualify.
So how do you answer the question and still pass the prequalification?
I might suggest that you consider not check yes or no and attach your endorsements to the prequal and put a little note that says, ongoing and completed operations included as per attached. If you really want to go out on a limb, have them refer to this article and call me.
1. Your acts or omissions; or
2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf…
Ronald Hicks, CIC, CRIS Bollinger Insurance.