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
PA Adopts First Manifestation Coverage Trigger (July 2015)
The ISO Classification System and the CGL Policy (March 2015)
The Duty To Defend—Groundless, False, or Fraudulent (December 2014)
The Montrose Endorsement—15 Years Later (September 2014)
The "Your Work Exclusion"—A Curious View (June 2014)
The CGL and the Professional Liability Exclusion (April 2014)
Subrogation and the CGL Policy (December 2013)
Broad Form Property Damage (September 2013)
Does CGL Coverage Apply after the Sale? (June 2013)
2013 Edition of the CGL (March 2013)
The Claims-Made CGL Policy (November 2012)
Contractual Liability Exclusion—The Ball Is in Your Court (June 2012)
Punitive Damages—Setting an Example (June 2012)
"Primary and Noncontributory" (March 2012)
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

The 2004 ISO CGL Policy

April 2004

In March 2004, Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO), began filing a revision of the standard commercial general liability (CGL) insurance coverage form, scheduled for implementation with policies written or effective on or after December 1, 2004. This article looks at the most significant revisions.

by Jeff Woodward

In March 2004, Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) began filing a revision of the standard commercial general liability coverage form, other miscellaneous general liability coverage forms, and endorsements for use with these forms. The changes are scheduled for implementation with policies written or effective on or after December 1, 2004. This article will look at the most significant revisions to the CGL form itself; a subsequent IRMI Insights article will examine the new or revised miscellaneous coverage forms and endorsements.

Mobile Equipment and Statutory Insurance Requirements

Although the CGL policy excludes liability arising out of the use of owned "autos," that exclusion does not apply to vehicles that meet the policy’s definition of "mobile equipment." Mobile equipment comprises vehicles incapable of operation on public roads (heavy construction cranes, for example); vehicles that are designed for use off public roads but can nevertheless be driven on public roads (farm tractors, bulldozers); and vehicles that would ordinarily be considered "autos" except that they are "maintained for use solely on or next to" the named insured’s premises (a farm pickup truck that is never driven off the farm). The operation or use of any such vehicle is a general liability—rather than an auto liability—exposure, and is covered under standard commercial general liability policies.

In some states, certain vehicles in the last two categories mentioned above—and particularly certain kinds of farm or construction equipment—are subject to motor vehicle registration requirements and to the state’s financial responsibility or compulsory insurance laws. Historically, general liability insurers have been willing to tailor the CGL policy to meet any statutory insurance requirements to which covered mobile equipment was subject. A standard endorsement, CG 99 01, was developed specifically for that purpose.

The scope of compulsory insurance and financial responsibility laws has expanded significantly during the last couple of decades, now encompassing in most states such coverages as uninsured motorists and personal injury protection, which applies without reference to conventional principles of legal liability. As a result of these changes, many insurers have come to regard the operation of registered mobile equipment as an auto rather than a general liability exposure. Recognizing that fact, ISO has decided to remove coverage in connection with these vehicles from the CGL policy, leaving them, by default, as an exposure to be insured by a business auto or other commercial automobile policy. To accomplish this move, three changes to the CGL coverage form have been necessary.

The policy’s definitions of "auto" and "mobile equipment" have been modified to state that land motor vehicles subject to any motor vehicle insurance law are not "mobile equipment" —even if they otherwise fall within one of the defined "mobile equipment" categories—but have the status of "autos" under the policy. The primary result of this change is to bring such vehicles within the policies "aircraft, auto or watercraft" exclusion.

The "aircraft, auto or watercraft" exclusion has been modified to preserve coverage for the operation of equipment attached to vehicles that no longer qualify as "mobile equipment" under the revised definitions discussed above. This is in keeping with the traditional coordination of coverage between general and auto liability policies with respect to equipment attached to vehicles. The "over-the-road" exposure falls under the auto policy, while the operation of the equipment remains a general liability exposure. For example, a truck with attached cherry picker or air compressor is an "auto," and operation of such a truck is excluded under the CGL; but liability arising out of the operation of the cherry picker or compressor itself is not excluded.

In the same way, the "aircraft, auto or watercraft" exclusion of the 2004 CGL will make an exception for machinery or equipment "attached to, or part of, a land vehicle that would qualify under the definition of ‘mobile equipment’ if it were not subject to" a motor vehicle insurance law. In other words, a backhoe that is subject to its state’s compulsory insurance law will be an "auto," and its operation will be excluded from CGL coverage. But the operation (e.g., at a job site) of the arm and bucket will still be covered by the CGL policy.

Regarding the operation of mobile equipment that is subject to motor vehicle registration, the CGL policy extends insured status to anyone operating such equipment "along a public highway" with the named insured’s permission. (In this respect, the current CGL policy provides the same permissive-user coverage found in commercial automobile policies.) Since the operation of such vehicles will not be covered at all under the 2004 revision, this section of the "Who Is an Insured" section of the policy is being deleted.

"Other Insurance," Additional Insureds, and Completed Operations

A perennial challenge for CGL insureds who also have coverage under someone else’s policy as an additional insured has been making sure that the additional insured coverage will respond first to a loss covered by both policies. The current CGL "Other Insurance" condition addresses this problem by stipulating that the policy is excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises or operations for which you have been added as an additional insured by attachment of an endorsement." That language is a specific reference to a standard additional insured endorsement (like ISO’s CG 20 10) that provides coverage to an additional insured for the named insured’s "ongoing operations," but not for products or completed operations.

Last year a new endorsement—CG 20 37—was introduced by ISO, by means of which the additional insured may also be covered for claims that arise out of the named insured’s work and fall within the products-completed operations hazard. To avoid any suggestion that the additional insured’s own policy is not excess over that products-completed operations coverage as well, the "Other Insurance" condition is being revised to make reference both to premises and operations, and to products and completed operations.

The Pollution Exclusion

The CGL pollution exclusion contains an exception which preserves coverage for bodily injury caused by fumes from building heating equipment (e.g., carbon monoxide from a defective furnace). Without the exception, the policy’s definition of "pollutants," which specifically includes "fumes," would be broad enough to eliminate coverage for such claims. Since the introduction of the heating equipment exception, questions have arisen regarding the policy’s coverage intent with respect to air-conditioning equipment, and at least one bodily injury claim resulting from fumes emitted by a defective water heater has resulted in a high-profile coverage dispute ultimately decided by a federal circuit court: Admiral Insurance Co. v Feit Management Co., 321 F3d 1326 (11th Cir 2003). That decision held that the exception for "equipment used to heat a building" was not broad enough to apply as well to a water heater, even if the toxic fumes were carried through the building by heating ducts.

In light of these coverage disputes, ISO is rewriting the building heating equipment exception to make specific reference to equipment that is used "to heat, cool or dehumidify the building, or equipment that is used to heat water for personal use, by the building’s occupants or their guests."

Electronic Data Exclusion

For several years, the issue of liability for damage to or loss of electronically stored data was a contentious one under general liability policies. For insureds whose businesses created the possibility of damaging or destroying another entity’s computerized records or software, a number of exclusions were developed for use with the CGL policy. These endorsements specifically addressed errors and omissions exposures for software developers and manufacturers, programmers, data processing services, and consultants—the businesses that were perceived at the time to have the greatest liability exposure for damaging a third party’s electronic data.

With the advent of the Internet, which effectively created the possibility of links between any two computers (and any two databases) in the world, the liability exposure increased astronomically. Any person or business with a Web site is now subject to claims that an interface or download with another computer caused damage to the latter’s data or software.

In response to this dramatically increased exposure, ISO developed a CGL coverage option—electronic data liability endorsement CG 04 37—and at the same time modified the CGL "property damage" definition to stipulate that "electronic data is not tangible property." The result of that revised language was to eliminate coverage for direct damage to electronic data and coverage for the loss of use of data that are not physically injured, by removing such losses from the scope of "property damage."

As part of the 2004 CGL revision, ISO has now introduced additional language intended to restrict coverage in connection with loss of electronic data. The new language becomes exclusion "p" of the policy’s Coverage A, and eliminates coverage for "damages arising out of the loss of, loss of use of, damage to, corruption of, inability to access, or inability to manipulate electronic data." Whether this new exclusionary language eliminates any coverage not already eliminated by the stipulation that "electronic data is not tangible property" (and therefore not a subject of "property damage" coverage) remains unclear. Does it, for example, address one possible basis for a computer-based liability claim that is not addressed by the "property damage" definition alone—a claim for loss of use of computer hardware resulting from damage to electronic data? Such a loss would clearly result in "inability to access" data. More questions of this kind are raised than answered by the presence in the CGL policy of two separate yet apparently overlapping provisions, both of which have the aim of restricting coverage for loss of electronic data.

Whatever the scope of the new electronic data exclusion, the gap it creates can be filled by a new coverage form also being introduced as part of the 2004 multistate revision, CG 00 65, Electronic Data Liability Coverage Form. That new form covers an "electronic data incident" that causes "loss of electronic data." The latter term is defined in language that reproduces precisely the exposure now excluded from CGL coverage: "damage to, loss of, loss of use of, corruption of, inability to access, or inability to properly manipulate electronic data."

Medical Payments and "Athletics"

CGL medical payments coverage does not apply to "a person injured while taking part in athletics." Dictionary definitions of the term "athletics" have been cited as grounds for limiting the scope of that exclusion to organized sports and other "serious" athletic endeavors. For instance, Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines "athletics" as "exercises, sports, or games engaged in by athletes"; the same source then defines "athlete" as "a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina."

Strict application of the term athletics in that sense would arguably not include the occasional sporting activities of most "weekend athletes," impromptu softball or basketball games at company picnics, children’s athletic instruction, etc., since none of those activities involves people who are "trained or skilled in … sports." To restore the exclusion to the scope that ISO says was always intended for it, it is being revised to apply to "a person injured while practicing, instructing or participating in any physical exercises or games, sports, or athletic contests."

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.

© 2000-2015 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.