Tort Law & Insurance – How Much CGL Insurance Still Really Exists for Novel Risks ???
Much of the strict liability theory taught in law school in 1980-1983, and still today, invoked a rationale of risk-spreading, and assumed that manufacturers could and would purchase CGL insurance to spread the risk of loss. Risk-spreading of course makes sense, and most individuals will acknowledge that there it is difficult to articulate a moral and rationale basis for insisting that some limited number of unfortunate individuals should alone bear the physical, financial and emotional harms caused by defective products (at least when there is real harm and a real defect).
That said, tort theory needs to reflect the reality that the actual availability of CGL insurance does not always exist, and seems to continue to shrink. Non-availability of coverage dates back to the so-called “pollution exclusions” inserted in the 1970s and 1980s, and then the “asbestos exclusions” that became common in the mid-1980s.
Two recent articles highlight the further shrinkage of CGL coverage. The first is an article by David Lenckus in the December 1, 2008 issue of Business Insurance. Its gist is that CGL insurance is now being significantly limited by some insurers by using terms that preclude coverage for later-acquired operations, at least when the operations are not exactly the same as the current operations. Terms of this sort may well may life tougher for the M & A world.
The second is a blog article from PorterWright regarding insurers starting to issue exclusions that preclude coverage for harms arising from nano particles. Exclusions are being issued because some studies indicate that the risks associated with nano particles may equal or exceed the risks associated with the various types of asbestos fibers.
Curb on CGL coverage creeping into market
By DAVE LENCKUS Dec. 01, 2008
Restrictive commercial general liability insurance policies that are moving into the admitted market worry some experts that more policyholders with tough risks–particularly construction contractors–could unexpectedly find themselves with limited CGL coverage.
Experts also are concerned about the coverage the policies provide, because some critical coverage terms are linked to an insurance industry database that is modified periodically and is not directly accessible by risk managers.
Unlike traditional CGL policies, which provide broad coverage for claims arising from a policyholder’s operations–except for excluded risks–the restrictive policies contain an endorsement with a “classification limitation” of operations that underwriters will cover.
Those endorsements are contained in the declaration pages of policies, which otherwise follow the traditional CGL policy language developed by the Insurance Services Office Inc. of Jersey City, N.J. However, ISO did not develop the classification endorsement, a spokeswoman said.
Under the policies, if a policyholder adds operations without notifying its underwriter, or if the policyholder’s current operations do not fit squarely within the classification limitations, then related losses would not be covered, experts said.
Policyholders also could not expect insurers to provide a defense against those claims, noted Joe Underwood, a senior consultant with Albert Risk Management Consultants in Needham, Mass.
Such policies are common in the surplus lines market but have now begun to creep into admitted coverage, potentially leaving some buyers with less coverage than they thought they had, experts say.
Nonadmitted insurers have been writing the restrictive CGL coverage for construction risks for a few years, said Bruce MacDonald, also a senior consultant with Albert Risk Management.
And John DiBiasi, president, excess and surplus lines for XL America Inc. in Exton, Pa., said XL America writes the restrictive coverage for many other tough risks, including real estate ventures.
But policyholder attorney Kevin Connolly, a partner with Anderson Kill & Olick P.C. in New York, said he first saw policies from more than one insurer with the endorsements in the past few months and that the policies have not “carried the stamp of a nonadmitted carrier.”
An XL America standard lines market subsidiary, Greenwich Insurance Co. in Stamford, Conn., writes CGL policies with the restrictive coverage, according to documents that Business Insurance obtained. Greenwich is admitted in all 50 states.
An XL America spokeswoman did not know how long Greenwich had been writing the coverage.
But several brokers at major brokerages said they had seen the restrictive coverage only in the surplus lines market.
The classification endorsement “turns the CGL policy upside down,” Mr. Connolly asserted.
A CGL policy “should be covering everything you do, unless there’s fraud in the policy application,” said John Lubatti, an Atlanta-based senior vp in the casualty practice at Willis HRH, a unit of Willis Group Holdings Ltd.
XL America’s Mr. DiBiasi disagreed. The classification limitations include all of the typical operations in which a policyholder would be involved, he said. But the limitations protect an insurer from being drawn into covering operations it never wanted to insure, he said.
Mr. Connolly said the endorsement is so unusual that policyholders were unaware of it until after he had conducted routine policy reviews at the outset of construction projects.
“That’s 100% true,” Mr. MacDonald said. “That’s the principal part of the concern of this type of endorsement.” He said he has encountered the endorsement when construction project owners have retained him to review contractors’ coverage that would name the owners as additional insureds. Contractors often did not realize their coverage was restricted, he said.
Buyers of surplus lines coverage typically have their “antennae up” for unusual endorsements, but risk managers do not expect such coverage limitations from admitted market insurers, Willis HRH’s Mr. Lubatti said.
XL America’s Mr. DiBiasi asserted that buyers should either carefully read all of their policies or hold their brokers accountable for explaining their coverage.
Experts say another problem with the restrictive policies is that they do not give policyholders the flexibility to adjust their insurance to cover all operations.
With traditional CGL policies, an insurer typically conducts a premium audit and then requires a policyholder that adds operations during its policy period to pay additional premium to cover those operations, risk experts say.
Under the more restrictive policies, however, a policyholder with operations not covered by its policy is not given that opportunity, Mr. DiBiasi and other experts explained.
Mr. DiBiasi said the premium audit process should not force insurers to cover any risk.
But understanding what operations are and are not covered is somewhat challenging for policyholders, experts said. The policies do not clearly spell out which operations are covered in the “classification limitation,” they said.
Instead, the policies refer policyholders to an ISO database for additional information, but that database is not open to policyholders. Policyholders could ask their brokers for that information, because brokers have access to the database, experts noted.
Still, experts raised concerns about insurers linking policyholder coverage to a database in which definitions of covered operations could be modified between a policy’s inception date and the time a claim is filed. A modification could leave a policyholder with no coverage for operations that originally were covered, they said.
“We have to trust the insurance company to do the right thing when a claim comes in,” said Mr. Connolly, the policyholder attorney.
XL America’s Mr. DiBiasi said, “The policy stands as it was issued and will be handled for claims on the basis as it was issued even years after the fact.”
He added that “ISO changes apply only to policies going forward and only if a specific company adopts the change.”
#InsuranceCoverageforTortClaims #MassTortIssues #PolicyIssues