Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse IRMI OnlineIRMI Online
Expand How To Use IRMI OnlineHow To Use IRMI Online
My Paid Publications
Expand What's NewWhat's New
Expand DashboardsDashboards
Collapse Commercial Liability InformationCommercial Liability Information
Collapse Free Commercial Liability CommentaryFree Commercial Liability Commentary
Expand Additional Insured IssuesAdditional Insured Issues
Expand EnvironmentalEnvironmental
Collapse Liability InsuranceLiability Insurance
Changing Definition of "Occurrence" in CGL Cases (January 2012)
Is an Occurrence the Bodily Injury or Property Damage? (December 2011)
Additional Insured Status—Automatic or Wet Blanket? (October 2011)
Legal Separation—The Severability Test in the CGL (June 2011)
Do CGL Policies Cover "Rip and Tear" Expenses? (March 2011)
The Increasingly Complex CGL Policy (January 2011)
Pay Me Back! Reimbursement of Defense Costs in the CGL (October 2010)
"Arising Out of": How Strong Is the Connection? (August 2010)
The Recall Expense Exclusion—When Your Ship Does Not Come In (July 2010)
Invisible Ink: The Duty To Defend When There Is No Duty To Defend (May 2010)
The Impaired Property Exclusion (April 2010)
Top 10 Problems with Follow-Form Coverage (March 2010)
Lowered Expectation: How Courts Treat Expected Injury Exclusions (February 2010)
A High-Level View of the CGL Policy (January 2010)
The Duty To Defend: The Four(ish) Corners Rule (November 2009)
OCP Liability versus Additional Insured Coverage (October 2009)
What Satisfies the Self-Insured Retention? (August 2009)
Contractual Confusion—Assuming the Liability of Others (July 2009)
The Persistence of Indemnity (May 2009)
Other Insurance and the CGL Policy (April 2009)
CGL Insurance and the Question of Intent (February 2009)
Trigger Theories and the CGL (December 2008)
Care, Custody, or Control Exclusion in the CGL (October 2008)
Coverage Trigger: Getting It Right for the Right Reason (October 2008)
The Future Is Now: When Eventual Indemnity Obligations become Present Defense Obligations (August 2008)
CGL Insurance 2007 Edition—A Summary of Changes (June 2008)
Variations on a Theme: When the Cause Theory Determines the Number of Occurrences (May 2008)
CGL Exclusion for Expected or Intended Injury (March 2008)
The Burden To Allocate: Mine, Yours, or Ours? (February 2008)
Liquor Liability Exclusion in the CGL (January 2008)
Insurance Law and Exclusion (m) (November 2007)
Allocating Losses under a 1973 CGL (September 2007)
When Workers Aren't Employees (September 2007)
In Defense of Insured Contracts (July 2007)
More Allocation Theories: Exhaustion (July 2007)
No Harm, No Coverage—Personal and Advertising Injury Liability Coverage in the CGL (Part 1) (January 2007)
No Harm, No Coverage—Personal and Advertising Injury Liability Coverage in the CGL (Part 2) (April 2007)
Cover Me: The Subcontractor Exception to the Your [Completed] Work Exclusion (April 2007)
The Scope of "Ongoing Operations" Additional Insured Endorsements: Broader than Expected (February 2007)
When Does Liability Coverage Exist for Mental Anguish without Bodily Injury? (November 2006)
The Hazards of Products and Completed Operations (October 2006)
Pre-Tender Defense Costs: Who Pays? (July 2006)
Are Products Advertisements That Give Rise to Advertising Injury Coverage? (April 2006)
Additional Insured Endorsements—A Potential Minefield (Part 1) (January 2006)
Additional Insured Endorsements—A Potential Minefield (Part 2) (February 2006)
Additional Insured Endorsements—A Potential Minefield (Part 3) (March 2006)
Allocation of Damages for Ongoing Losses over Multiple Policies (January 2006)
Auto versus Mobile Equipment in the 2004 CGL—An Update (October 2005)
The Scope of the Prior Publication Exclusion: Now You See It, Now You Don't (October 2005)
Faulty Work and the CGL (July 2005)
Insurers: Can You Get Your Defense Dollars Back? (July 2005)
CGL—Fire Legal (April 2005)
CGL—Covered Locations (December 2004)
A Summary of December 2004 ISO CGL Policy Changes (October 2004)
How the Limits Apply in the CGL (July 2004)
Additional Insured Changes in the CGL (May 2004)
The 2004 ISO CGL Policy (April 2004)
Some Common Coverage Misconceptions of the CGL Policy (January 2004)
Known Injury or Damage (October 2003)
When Is an Insured Not an Insured? (June 2003)
The CGL Pollution Exclusion (March 2003)
Auto versus Mobile Equipment in the CGL (December 2002)
Duty to Defend in the CGL Policy (August 2002)
Contractual Liability and the CGL Policy (May 2002)
Insurance Litigation Review: 2001 (April 2002)
The 2001 ISO CGL Revision (January 2002)
What Does "Separation of Insureds" Mean (Part 1) (June 2001)
What Does "Separation of Insureds" Mean (Part 2) (August 2002)
Insurance Coverage Disputes and Society's Problems (May 2001)
Coordinating Persons Insured in Primary and Excess Liability Policies (February 2001)
Gun Violence and the CGL Policy (February 2001)
Spoliation of Evidence: The Next Frontier for Insurance Coverage Battles (January 2001)
Who Wants To Be an Insured? (December 2000)
When a Breach of Contract Constitutes an Accident (July 2000)
When Negligent Conduct Does Not Constitute an Accident (March 2000)
The 1999 CGL Insuring Agreement: ISO's "Montrose Endorsement" (March 2000)
Additionally Insured or Held Harmful? (March 2000)
Expand Commercial Property InformationCommercial Property Information
Expand Commercial Auto InformationCommercial Auto Information
Expand D&O, PL, E&O, EPLI InformationD&O, PL, E&O, EPLI Information
Expand Workers Compensation InformationWorkers Compensation Information
Classifications and Cross-References
Expand Risk Mgt. and Multiline InformationRisk Mgt. and Multiline Information
Expand Risk Finance InformationRisk Finance Information
Expand Construction InformationConstruction Information
Expand Personal Lines InformationPersonal Lines Information
Expand Claims, Caselaw, LegalClaims, Caselaw, Legal
Expand Insurance IndustryInsurance Industry
Expand Glossary of Insurance & Risk Management TermsGlossary of Insurance & Risk Management Terms
Expand SearchSearch
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement
System Requirements
Support

Who Wants To Be an Insured?

December 2000

It is common for businesses to involve multiple corporate, partnership, and joint venture entities, and there are a number of subtle nuances that can effect how insurance coverage applies to these entities. Care must be taken to identify them and assure that insured status is properly provided under CGL policies. Learn how in this insightful article.

by Richard G. Rudolph
Seaver Rudolph and Associates

Who wants to be an insured? Is it: (a) the named insured; (b) all related entities; (c) unnamed entities and individuals; or (d) anyone who needs coverage? In the real world, you might have a lifeline, but probably only one. Choosing the incorrect answer may put you out of the game and even in front of Judge Judy.

In this article, we will examine some of the subtleties of nominating entities and individuals as insured persons on casualty policies and how common practices can be improved to become best practices.

The Named Insured

The first step in correctly addressing the question of who wants to be an insured begins with the named insured description on the policy. The easy and obvious answer is to list specifically the named entity and any other entities the prospective insured identifies as needing insured status. This is a simple solution when there is a short list of entities and when the entities have a natural hierarchy, such as a holding company and a few wholly owned subsidiaries. It becomes increasingly complex when the prospective insureds consist of a mixture of types of organizations having interrelated ownership of varying degrees and unrelated ownership.

The standard policy extends certain traditional rights to the named insured, primarily the right to coverage (including damages and defense), the right to change the policy, the right to cancel the policy, the right to receive any return premium, and the right to receive notice of cancellation or nonrenewal or material change. Also, the policy imposes several duties, particularly the duty to pay the premium and to file claims and proof of loss, to submit to oral examination, and to perform other claims-related duties. Generally, these rights and duties are extended only to the first named insured (if such language exists in the conditions) or to the named insured first listed. One thing to consider with such policies is whether the first entity named on the list is the appropriate entity for a given right or duty. When the organizational structure is complex, this may not be the case.

The conventional approach to nominating the named insured would be to list each entity by name in a schedule that expands the named insured declaration. This specific scheduling addresses the primary need for answering the question "Who wants to be an insured?" but it creates additional issues and fails to maximize coverage that might be required. One glaring problem left unaddressed is the treatment of newly formed entities. The standard coverage extension for newly formed entities is temporary, with a time limit within which the insurer must be informed. Further, another provision states there is no coverage, including coverage under this newly formed entity extension, for partnerships or joint ventures not specifically named on the policy.

Several decades ago, the practice of endorsing an omnibus named insured provision to the policy became relatively commonplace. In the language of the typical omnibus named insured wording, every known entity, subsidiary, and affiliated or associated entity as exist, as existed in the past, or as may be constituted in the future were added. This approach solved the clerical difficulty of listing dozens of entities, but did not address the issue of specifically listing partnerships or joint ventures—past, present, or future—and did not clarify which entity had which particular traditional right or duty.

In keeping with the "belt and suspenders" approach favored by many cautious insurance professionals, both a specific listing of known entities and the omnibus wording to handle newly formed or newly forgotten entities has become common today.

Regardless of which approach is used, a second endorsement must be added to the policy stating exactly which entity has a specific right or duty and with respect to what activity or location, and stating that newly formed partnerships or joint ventures are automatically covered for at least a minimum time period pending a report to the underwriter. Past entities that were partnerships and joint ventures must also be added by endorsement.

Even this action does not maximize coverage and completely answer the question "Who wants to be an insured?" Most standard casualty policies contain a provision in the Who Is an Insured (or similarly titled section) which describes who is an insured by referring to an item in the declarations identifying the entity listed as the named insured as a proprietor or individual, a partnership, or a corporation. If the entity is a proprietor, individual, or partnership, the individual or partners and their spouses are covered with respect to the scope of their duties. If the entity is a corporation, its stockholders, directors, and officers are covered with respect to their ownership or their corporate duties. Many policies now include limited liability companies and their members in this expansion of coverage. Employees acting within the scope of their duties as such are covered for most situations.

However, when the specific listing of entities or the omnibus named insured wording described above are used, rarely are the listed entities described as respects their type of formation, and in the case of the omnibus wording, no type of formation is described. Thus, the extension of insured status to stockholders, directors, officers, members, partners, or proprietors who are not directly associated with the first named entity is uncertain. A strict reading of the policy language by a hard-nosed claims adjuster might result in a declination of coverage based on the simple fact that the specific entity involved in the claim was listed by name only, but since its organizational form was not specified in the declarations, no extension of coverage under the Who Is An Insured clause would be activated. While an insured would probably prevail in a declaratory action, the uncertainty of the result and the certainty of a delay are unacceptable.

Including the type of organizational structure with each entity listed on the named insured extension schedule can easily solve this problem, but it is less easily solved in the case of the omnibus wording. To address this, another endorsement stating that the type of organization declaration is deemed to apply to whatever entity is covered by the omnibus wording and the Who Is An Insured provision is extended as if the entity were specifically named and its type of organizational formation declared.

Conclusion

It is common for businesses to involve multiple corporate, partnership, and joint venture entities, and there are a number of subtle nuances that can effect how coverage applies to these entities. Care must be taken to identify them and assure that insured status is properly provided under commercial general liability (CGL) policies.


Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Advertisements
    
 
© 2000-2012 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.