Tag Archives: alcohol

Rental Car Waiver: To Buy or Not to Buy?

When I Googled “should I buy the rental car damage waiver, I got 40.6 million hits. Needless to say, much has been written about this issue. But much of what has been written is BAD (aka horrible and dangerous) advice.

If you have auto insurance, is that good enough? What about credit card coverage? This article explores the issues and suggests some answers, at least one of which you might not like. (Note: This article builds on an article I first published in 1998, titled “Top 10 Reasons to Purchase the Rental Car Damage Waiver.”]

The vast majority of consumer articles suggest that the purchase of the loss damage waiver (LDW) is not necessary if you have auto insurance or credit card coverage. For example, in a 2014 article in U.S. News & World Reports titled “7 Costly Car Rental Mistakes to Avoid,” the very first “mistake” involves buying insurance you don’t need. The article says your auto insurance policy “may” cover collision and quotes someone who says, “The credit card coverage will kick in for anything your personal policy doesn’t cover.” Needless to say, “may” and “will” are two different things.

While many auto policies and some credit cards may provide coverage for damage to a rental car, it is almost certainly not complete, and four- to five-figure uncovered losses are not at all uncommon. The purchase of the LDW (with caveats), along with auto insurance, provides a belt and suspenders approach to risk managing the rental car exposure.

Let’s explore the value and deficiencies of auto insurance, credit card coverage and loss damage waivers.

Personal Auto Policies

In the article I wrote in 1998 and have since updated, I enumerate many reasons why buying the loss damage waiver is a good idea. I won’t repeat those reasons in their entirety, but I’ll highlight the more important issues that have resulted in uncovered claims that I’m personally aware of, based on more than 20 years of managing such issues. We’ll start with the current 2005 ISO Personal Auto Policy (PAP) as the basis of our discussion, with some references to non-ISO auto policies.

The ISO PAP extends physical damage coverage to private passenger autos, pickups, vans and trailers you don’t own if at least one declared auto on your policy has such physical damage coverage. But physical damage coverage does not extend to a motor home, moving truck, motorcycle, etc. that you are renting.

Damage valuation is on an actual cash value (ACV) basis, while most rental agreements require coverage for “full value” (translation: whatever the rental car company says is the value), and most PAPs exclude any “betterment” in value.

Many non-ISO PAPs have an exclusion or dollar limitation on non-owned autos or specific types of rental vehicles such that rental, for example, of an upscale SUV or sports car may have limited or even no coverage.

Many PAPs limit or do not cover the rental company’s loss of rental income on a damaged auto. There is often an option to provide increased limits for this coverage, but many price-focused consumers may decline such coverage. Even where this coverage is provided, many insurers may only be willing to pay for the usage indicated by fleet logs while the rental agency wants the full daily rental value. In one claim, the renter was charged $2,000 more than his insurer was willing to pay. In another claim involving a luxury car that was stolen from his hotel parking lot, the renter was hit with the maximum daily rental rate of $300, for a total loss of use charge of $9,000 (that he negotiated down to $4,500). In still another claim, following the 2011 tsunami that hit Japan, replacement parts for a rental car were unavailable for several months, and the renter incurred a $6,000 loss-of-use charge by the rental car company.

Probably the most significant deficiency in the PAP is the lack of coverage for diminished value claims. That’s the #1 reason I always buy the LDW. I’m personally aware of uncovered diminished value charges of $3,000, $5,000, $7,000 and $8,000 and read about one from a reliable source that totaled $15,000 on an upscale SUV rental.

In one case, a Florida insured traveled to Colorado for a rock-climbing vacation. He passed on purchasing the LDW for his four-day rental because “I’m an excellent driver, and I’ve got car insurance and credit card coverage.” Apparently, the driver of the vehicle that sideswiped his rental car while it was parked was not an excellent driver. The damage totaled $4,400 for repairs, $370 for administrative fees, $620 for loss of use and $3,100 in diminished value. Of the $8,490 total, $3,990 was uninsured and not covered by his credit card, the biggest component being the $3,100 diminished value charge. In addition, the driver ended up having to hire a Colorado attorney to assist in resolving the claim. The cost of the LDW for the entire trip would have been less than $100, a small fraction of the total cost of his vacation trip.

When insureds travel on business or vacation, a rental car is often valet-parked at a hotel or restaurant. The ISO PAP extends physical damage coverage for non-owned autos “while in the custody of or being operated by you or any ‘family member’.” So, the question is whether the vehicle is still in the custody of the insured while it’s being valet-parked or otherwise in the custody of the valet service. If you don’t know and you’re relying on your PAP for coverage, the best advice is probably to not valet-park a rental car.

There are many other deficiencies in the ISO PAP that apply, and you can read about them in the previously mentioned “Top 10” article on our website. The last point I’ll make is a reminder that the majority of auto policies in the marketplace are not “ISO-standard” forms. (To learn more about that, Google “independent agent magazine price check.”) Despite what you may be led to believe by auto insurance advertisements or articles that imply that all auto policies and insurers are the same, there are potentially catastrophic differences, including coverage deficiencies with regard to rental cars. There are unendorsed non-ISO policies that don’t cover non-owned autos, period; others that exclude business use of such autos or non-private passenger vehicles (this one shows up in policies of major national carriers, not just “nonstandard” auto insurers); others that exclude vehicles that weigh more than 10,000 pounds; and so on.

Conclusion? An auto policy simply is not adequate to cover the rental car physical damage exposure.

Credit Card Coverages

Read a few of the many articles on the Internet about using credit card programs to fund damage to rental cars, and you would think that little more is needed to adequately address the exposure. Unfortunately, credit card programs have as many, or more, deficiencies as does the PAP alone. Anyone relying on auto insurance and credit cards would be well-advised to study the credit card programs. In his article, “Rental Car Agreements, LDWs, PAPs, and Credit Cards,” David Thompson, CPCU writes:

“Many major credit cards provide some limited, free coverage for rental cars. Most post the provisions related to rental cars on the card issuer’s web site. While these can run several pages, three specific conditions [that] limit, restrict or invalidate the free coverage are show-stoppers. For example:

“The following conditions limit, restrict, void or invalidate the auto rental damage waiver (DW) coverage provided by your credit card:

“(1) This auto rental DW supplements, and applies as excess of, any valid and collectible insurance. For coverage to apply, you must decline the DW offered by the rental company.

“(2) The following losses are not covered by this auto rental DW coverage: (a) Any loss [that] violated the rental agreement of the rental company; (b) Any claim for diminished value of the rental car.

“(3) Any loss or damage to certain types of vehicles—see list.”

In other words, (1) credit card coverage is excess over ANY collectible insurance, (2) you must decline the rental company’s LDW, (3) violation of the rental agreement precludes coverage, (4) like the PAP, there is no coverage for diminished value, which we’ve seen can total thousands of dollars and (5) certain types of vehicles are excluded. Excluded vehicles may include pick-up trucks, full- sized vans and certain luxury cars.

And these are only part of the full list of limitations often found in these programs. Another common limitation is that loss of use is only paid to the extent that the assessment is based on fleet utilization logs. One major credit card only covers collision and theft even though the rental agreement typically makes the user almost absolutely liable for all damage, including fire, flood and vandalism. Some credit cards offer broader optional protection plans, but typically they also exclude coverage if there is a violation of the rental agreement and don’t cover diminished value.

Another issue with reliance on credit cards is that the rental company may charge uncovered fees that max out the credit limit on the card. If you’re 1,000 miles from home on vacation with a maxed-out credit card, that can present problems.

Loss Damage Waivers

Many people don’t buy the rental car company’s LDW because they think they have “full coverage” between their auto policy and credit cards. Many see what can be a significant charge and choose not to buy the LDW on the premise, “This’ll never happen to me.”

I rarely rent cars on business trips or vacation, but I experienced a major claim with a hit-and-run in a restaurant parking lot the night before a 6 a.m. flight. I had bought the $12.95 LDW for my four-day trip, so I simply turned in the vehicle at the airport with little more than a shrug.

Thompson, who rents cars fairly often, says he has walked away from damaged cars three times. Returning a rental at the Ft. Lauderdale airport, Thompson asked the attendant how many cars a month are returned with damage. She responded that, in her typical 12-hour shift, 15 cars are returned with damage and, in most cases, the damage was allegedly caused by someone else, not the renter. She estimated that only about 15% of renters buy the LDW.

The cost of the LDW admittedly can be significant, especially if you extrapolate what the effective physical damage insurance cost would be at that daily rate. But that’s only one way to view the investment in peace of mind, not to mention the avoidance of what can be significant claims.

On an eight-day vacation last year, the LDW cost me more than the actual rental and, in fact, more than my airline ticket. But I considered the LDW part of the cost of the vacation.

Is the LDW all you need? Is it foolproof? Well, kind of, as long as you follow the rental agreement. If you violate the rental agreement, you are likely to void the LDW. Many rental agreements consider the following to be violations:

  • Driving on an unpaved road or off-road (often the case in state or national parks or states like Alaska and Hawaii).
  • Operation while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
  • Any illegal use (parking violations?), reckless driving, racing or pushing or towing another vehicle.
  • Use outside a designated territorial limit.
  • Operation by an unauthorized driver.

This illustrates the advantage of using the belt and suspenders approach of the PAP plus the LDW. The ISO PAP does not exclude the first three rental agreement violations, and the territorial limit is usually broader than any restrictive rental agreement territory outside of Mexico.

As for unauthorized drivers, some rental companies may automatically include a spouse or fellow employee or authorize them to drive for a fee. More often, the renter never reads the rental agreement and presumes anyone on the trip can drive. In one claim, a father and son were on vacation, and the father rented a car. The son had a driver’s license but was too young under the rental agreement to drive the car. The rental clerk made this clear at the time of rental. Despite knowing this, the father allowed the son to drive, and he wrecked the vehicle. Not only was the LDW voided, the father’s non-ISO PAP excluded the claim because the son was not permitted to drive the car.

A special case of unauthorized drivers could be-valet parking at a hotel or restaurant. Some agreements might except valet parking, so it’s important to determine at the time of rental whether valet parking is covered.

A note on third-party LDWs: In 2011, a fellow CPCU rented a car through Orbitz or Expedia, which offered an LDW at the time of the reservation. He mistakenly assumed this was the same LDW offered by the rental car company, but it was underwritten by a separate entity. During his trip, the rental car was damaged by a deer on a rural Montana road. To make a long story short, the third-party LDW was not a true “no liability” LDW warranty of the type offered by the rental car agency, and the result was, after negotiations on the uncovered portion of the charges (including diminished value), he had to pay in excess of $1,000 out of pocket.


When I rent a car on a business trip or vacation, I price the rental to include the LDW and make my decision, in part, on that basis. The peace of mind alone is invaluable, and, again, I consider the cost to be comparable to my decision to stay in a decent, secure hotel.

If you rent cars frequently, consider negotiating a price including LDW with one or more rental car agencies. Otherwise, caveat emptor. If you are an insurance professional giving advice to consumers about whether to purchase the LDW, it would likely be in your and your customer’s best interest to recommend consideration of the LDW. Your E&O insurer will appreciate it.

How to Think About Marijuana and Work

With a flip of the calendar, on July 1, Oregon became the fourth state in which recreational marijuana use became legal. For many Oregon employers, this status change from illegal to legal wasn’t a big deal. Medical marijuana is already legal in 24 states, including the Beaver State, and possessing less than an ounce was decriminalized in Oregon 40 years ago.

Recreational marijuana is just a new twist on an old story. All it really means is you can’t go to jail (or be fined) for smoking pot recreationally.

However, this “non-event” has made risk managers ponder the ramifications of recreational use, especially for their employees who work in the manufacturing industry. Manufacturers have strict policies to ensure a safe work environment. It goes without saying that people who are under the influence at work in a manufacturing or an industrial setting are far more likely to be injured on the job.

Being stoned at work should be treated no differently than being under the influence of alcohol or prescription medication. You certainly can’t show up drunk for work.

The employer is responsible for that employee as soon as he walks on to the job. Any drug use that affects an employee’s ability to perform the job should be a genuine concern for the employer.

The difficulty for employers is that there is no scientific method to determine a marijuana intoxication level, unlike a blood-alcohol level. Until there is definitive scientific evidence, employers are being advised to err on side of safety and forbid an employee to be under the influence of marijuana.

To do that, the employer needs a crystal-clear, zero-tolerance policy. Unless the employer has been living in a cave the past 50 years, it already has such a policy. But it should be updated to specifically address marijuana use, both on the job and recreationally, because it could affect the employee’s job performance.

It is predicted that in 2016 – the third election cycle in which marijuana legalization measures will be on ballots across the country – as many as seven more states could allow recreational use of marijuana. As each state approves the recreational use of marijuana, there looms in the background the knowledge, that under federal law, its use remains illegal.

Whether that will eventually force the feds to take a stand remains to be seen. Right now, the feds have just rolled over to let you scratch their belly.

But as each state joins the ranks of approving pot use recreationally, what was a minor irritant to the feds could grow too large for them to ignore.

The bottom line is that a stoned CPA might drop a number or two, but a stoned assembly line worker might drop a few fingers. It doesn’t matter if the cause is pot, alcohol or prescription medication. Smoke cannabis at work – or show up stoned – and you’ll be disciplined. It’s not about a worker’s rights; it’s about workplace safety.

Progress on Opioids — but Now Heroin?

You’ve probably noticed recent reports, within the workers’ comp pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) industry and elsewhere, that prescription opioid use and overdoses are on the decline. It is a long journey, and we cannot yet see the destination, but progress is being made. One of the goals has been to make it more difficult to secure clinically inappropriate prescription opioids through legitimate (physician, dentist) and illegitimate (pill mills, street sales) means. Abuse deterrent formulations have also helped, creating a hassle factor for those who want to abuse them. The increase in focus on the subject in the media and government has made it more top-of-mind. Although even one death or the creation of one addict is too many, and we have lots of cleanup to do today on the damage already done to individuals and communities, the trends are heartening.

However, for every intended consequence, there are also unpredictable unintended consequences. And one of those that I’ve been following for some time, that two recent clinical studies have codified as accurate, is the dramatic increase in the abuse and misuse of heroin. A good amount of that increase is theorized to be coming from those who may have become addicted or highly dependent upon the euphoric effect or dulling of the pain from opioids. Because today’s heroin is “pharma quality” and less expensive than opioids on the street, heroin has become the primary alternative choice. If you think this is a recent issue, this USA Today article titled “OxyContin a gateway to heroin for upper-income addicts” was my initial warning, on June 28, 2013.

The reasons for this switch are multiple and complicated. An excellent article on this issue was published in the June 2015 edition of “Pain Medicine News.”

Three quotes that struck me the most:

  • “Fewer than 20% of chronic pain patients benefit from opioids.”
  • “The prolific normalization of opioid use for chronic pain within primary care has seeded the epidemic of heroin addiction.”
  • “We are going to see the biggest explosion of heroin addiction ever in the next five years.”

Obviously, heroin is an illegal drug and therefore cannot be tracked or managed within a PBM. But everyone needs to be watching. While heroin use may not be a “workers’ comp problem,” it is a societal problem, which ultimately always rebounds as an issue for everyone (and everything) else.

The CDC just published (or at least publicized on Twitter) a “Vital Signs” report specifically on the subject. This should be required reading for everyone concerned with the epidemic of substance abuse in the U.S. Note that I said “substance abuse,” because as has been clearly stated the issue is not specific to prescription drugs or heroin or cocaine or alcohol binge drinking — it is a cultural issue of people either wanting to have a good time or just to check out from life or pain. According to this CDC report, more than 8,200 people died from heroin overdoses in 2013. When you add that to the more than 175,000 people who have died from prescription drug overdoses since 1999, the people affected is staggering. Not just those who lost their lives, but friends and family left behind and communities (and, in some cases, employers) dealing with the aftermath.

While there is a treasure trove of information included in the CDC’s report, the most important point for me (given my focus since 2003) was the advice to states:

  • Address the strongest risk factor for heroin addiction: addiction to prescription opioid painkillers

If you still don’t believe that opioid use and the abuse of heroin (and other drugs) are related, you just aren’t paying attention. Or you don’t want to connect the dots. I will let the CDC prove my point …


The use of heroin is no respecter of income level, age, gender, education or geographic location. However, the CDC did outline those most at risk for use:

  • People who are addicted to prescription opioid painkillers
  • People who are addicted to cocaine
  • People without insurance or enrolled in Medicaid
  • Non-Hispanic whites
  • Males
  • People who are addicted to marijuana and alcohol
  • People living in a large metropolitan area
  • 18- to 25-year-olds

Do yourself a favor. Take 10 minutes and read the report from the CDC. It will only be wasted time if the information does not influence you to action.

ISO Form Changes Commercial General Liability

In April of 2013 the ISO modified the Commercial Property Forms. It was one of the biggest changes in forms that we have seen in years with the majority of forms taking on some type of change.

Effective April 2013, many of the Commercial General Liability forms also have a new edition date. Some of the changes are minor but carry new edition dates of existing form numbers, and there are some forms that are first being introduced. It is a multistate revision and some of the specific state forms have also taken a change or introduced new forms. Some of the ISO changes have already been adopted in insurance company forms while other changes represent clarification of the “intent” of the form.

There are new multistate endorsements that are being introduced:

  • Primary And noncontributory — Other Insurance Condition Endorsement
  • Additional Insured — Owners, Lessees or Contractors — Automatic Status for Other Parties When Required in Written Construction Agreement
  • Total Pollution Exclusion For Designated Products Or Work Endorsement
  • Liquor Liability — Bring Your Own Alcohol Establishments Endorsement
  • Amendment of Personal and Advertising Injury Definition Endorsement
  • Designated Location(s) Aggregate Limit Endorsement

Specifically we will highlight those changes that have any significant impact and new endorsements to the form series. It goes without saying that any form that narrows coverage requires that we notify our insureds to avoid any gap in coverage as they renew on the new CGL edition date. All of these changes will be discussed in more detail in the Insurance Community class on March 19th.

Liquor Liability Form Revisions
One of the areas that has taken on a significant change is in the area of Liquor Liability. There are several forms that have taken the new edition date including:

Liquor Liability Coverage Form CG 00 33 04 13
Liquor Liability Coverage Form CG 00 34 04 13
Amendment Of Liquor Liability Exclusion CG 21 50 04 13
Amendment Of Liquor Liability Exclusion — Exception For Scheduled Premises Or Activities CG 21 51 04 13
Liquor Liability — Bring Your Own Alcohol Establishments CG 24 06 04 13
Amendment Of Liquor Liability Exclusion CG 29 52 04 13
Amendment Of Liquor Liability Exclusion — Exception For Scheduled Premises Or Activities CG 29 53 04 13

As with most liability changes there is case law that gives rise to the need for clarification and form revision. Some of the specific court cases relating to this change are:

  • PENN-AMERICA INS.CO. v. PECADILLOS, INC. (27A.3d259 (2011) Superior Court of Pennsylvania;
  • McGuire v. Curry and Park Jefferson Speedway, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation (766 N. W. 2d 501 (2009);
  • SIMMONS V. HOMATAS (925 n. e. 2D 1089 (2010; 236 ill. 2D 459) Supreme Court of Illinois., to name a few.

In the case of PENN-AMERICA INS.CO. v. PECADILLOS, INC. (27A.3d259 (2011) Superior Court of Pennsylvania, two customers entered the bar after visiting several other drinking establishment where they drank in excess. They continued to drink at Pecadillos, became further intoxicated, and were asked to leave even though they were in no condition to drive. The patrons left, caused an accident, killed two individuals and injured two others. The insured argued that the allegations in the underlying action against them fell outside the related CGL policy's liquor liability exclusion. The court ruled that a “duty to defend” was triggered when an insured was alleged to have continued to serve intoxicated patrons and then ejected them in a dangerously inebriated condition.

In the case of McGuire v. Curry and Park Jefferson Speedway, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation (766 N. W. 2d 501 (2009), a racetrack employer allowed an unsupervised, underage employee access to alcoholic beverages. The employee was a runner hired to deliver alcohol and other supplies to the racetrack's concession stands and bars. One day after the employee's shift ended, he drove his vehicle off the racetrack's premises while intoxicated and injured a passenger on a motorcycle. The plaintiff's suit filed against the racetrack alleged negligent hiring, retention and supervision of an underage employee. The court concluded that the racetrack did have a duty to supervise the employee and to disallow access to alcoholic beverages.

In the last case, SIMMONS V. HOMATAS (et al On Stage Productions, Inc.,) (925 n. e. 2D 1089 (2010; 236 ill. 2D 459) Supreme Court of Illinois, the Illinois court had to rule on whether a business that does not serve alcoholic beverages but allows patrons to bring in alcohol is considered in the business of selling alcoholic beverages. In this case the club, operated by Stage Productions, is a nude strip club that does not serve alcohol but allows its patrons to bring their own alcohol and sells them set ups — providing glasses, mixers, ice, etc. Homatas and his companion brought in a fifth of rum and vodka and became intoxicated. They left the club and retrieved their car from valet parking. The valet parker opened the driver's door and told Homatas to leave the premises. Fifteen minutes later, Homatas collided with another vehicle, resulting in the death of four individuals.

The case had to deal with whether the business can be liable for injuries that arise, not as a result of serving alcohol, but as a result of actions in connection with allowing patrons to consume alcohol that they brought on the premises. The court concluded that the plaintiff's common law claims were not preempted by the state's Dram Shop laws. The court went on to state that the business was not in the business of selling liquor even though they provided the set ups for the liquor that was brought in by the patrons.

Due to these cases and others, the ISO has revised the Liquor Liability exclusion in the various GL coverage forms to clearly state that the Liquor Liability exclusion applies even if the claims against any insured allege the negligence or other wrongdoing in:

  • The supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others; or,
  • Providing or failing to provide transportation with respect to any person that may be under the influence of alcohol;

if the “occurrence” which caused the “bodily injury” or “property damage” involved that which is described in Paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of the exclusion.

There is further clarity that a Bring Your Own Alcohol Establishment (BYO) is not considered in the business of selling, serving or furnishing alcoholic beverages. There is a new endorsement available in the series that specifically deals with the BYO exposure titled: Liquor Liability Bring Your Own Alcohol Establishment.

Pollution Form Revisions
There are a couple of forms relating to Pollution that have been modified with the 4/13 change including:

Pollution Liability Coverage Form Designated Sites Cg 00 39 04 13
Pollution Liability Limited Coverage Form Designated Sites Cg 00 40 04 13
Total Pollution Exclusion For Designated Products Or Work Cg 21 99 04 13
Pesticide Or Herbicide Applicator — Limited Pollution Coverage Cg 28 12 04 13

In the Pollution Liability Coverage Forms CG 00 39 and CG 00 40 the “Aircraft, Auto, Rolling Stock or Watercraft” exclusion is revised to clarify coverage as relates claims for negligence in the “supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others” when the claim involves injury or damage arising out of the use of an automobile. This exclusion has been reviewed in prior form series including in 2000 and 2003. There is a new exclusionary endorsement introduced titled: Total Pollution Exclusion for Designated Products or Work CG 21 99. This new endorsement is similar to the CG 21 98 except that it limits the applicability of the exclusion to the specific product or work described in the schedule on the endorsement. Caution when reviewing the endorsement — it is broadening if the CG 21 99 replaces the CG 21 98. However, addition of the endorsement to a policy that does not contain the CG 21 98 would result in a reduction in coverage.

Additional Insured Endorsements
There are approximately 24 Additional Insured Endorsements that have taken the new edition date. These changes are due, in part, to the various state laws that have “anti-indemnification” laws that prohibit provisions in construction contracts which require one party to indemnify another against liability for the other party's own negligence or fault. Also, there are some states that prohibit providing insurance to an additional insured for the party's own negligence.

One of the clarifications in the new Additional Insured Endorsements is to add new language that will provide insurance to an additional insured “only to the extent provided by law.” Further clarification is that the coverage provided under the Additional Insured Endorsement cannot be broader coverage than that provided to the named insured. There is a new Additional Insured endorsement introduced in this form series titled: Additional Insured-Owners, Lessees or Contractors — Automatic Status for Other Parties When Required in Written Construction Contract Agreement (CG 20 38). This endorsement provides additional insured status to parties to whom the named insured has become obligated due to written contract or agreement to name an additional insured under their policy.

Primary and Non-Contributory — Other Insurance Endorsement CG 20 01 04 13 — New Form
A new form has been introduced to clarify that coverage is made available to an additional insured on a “primary and non-contributory” basis. This change is particularly important for the construction client because construction contracts oftentimes require that the additional insured is provided coverage on a “primary and noncontributory” basis. The provisions require that:

  • The additional insured is a named insured on other insurance available to them; and
  • A written contract or agreement has been entered into by the insured stating that the insured's policy will be primary and wound not seek contribution from any other insurance available to the additional insured.

There are several other forms that have taken a change in edition date that we will be discussing in our upcoming New Commercial General Liability Form class taught on March 19th. The class is being taught by Marjorie Segale, AFIS, CISC, CIC, RPLU, CRIS, ACSR, CISR. Marjorie is the Vice President and Director of Education for the Insurance Community Center and President of Segale Consulting Services, LLC.

This is a listing of the forms that have changed. If it form is marked in “red” it is a new form to the series.

Commercial General Liability Coverage Form (Occurrence) CG 00 01 04 13
Commercial General Liability Coverage Form (Claims Made) CG 00 02 04 13
Owners And Contractors Protective Liability Coverage Form Coverage For Operations Of Designated Contracto CG 00 09 04 13
Liquor Liability Coverage Form (Occurrence) CG 00 33 04 13
Liquor Liability Coverage Form (Claims Made) CG 00 34 04 13
Railroad Protective Liability Coverage Form CG 00 35 04 13
Products/Completed Operations Liability Coverage Form (Occurrence) CG 00 37 04 13
Products/Completed Operations Liability Coverage Form (Claims Made) CG 00 38 04 13
Pollution Liability Coverage Form Designated Sites CG 00 39 04 13
Pollution Liability Limited Coverage Form Designated Sites CG 00 40 04 13
Underground Storage Tank Policy Designated Tanks CG 00 42 04 13
Electronic Data Liability Coverage Form CG 00 65 04 13
Product Withdrawal Coverage Form CG 00 66 04 13
Limited Product Withdrawal Expense Endorsement CG 04 36 04 13
Electronic Data Liability CG 04 37 04 13
Primary And Non-Contributory — Other Insurance Endorsement CG 20 01 04 13
Additional Insured Concessionaires Trading Under Your Name CG 20 03 04 13
Additional Insured Controlling Interest CG 20 05 04 13
Additional Insured Engineers Architects Or Surveyors CG 20 07 04 13
Additional Insured User Of Golfmobiles CG 20 08 04 13
Additional Insured Owners, Lessees Or Contractors Scheduled Person Or Organization CG 20 10 04 13
Additional Insured Managers Or Lessors Of Premises CG 20 11 04 13
Additional Insured State Or Governmental Agency Or Subdivision Or Political Subdivision — Permits Or Authorizations CG 20 12 04 13
Additional Insured State Or Governmental Agency Or Subdivision Or Political Subdivision — Permits Or Authorizations Relating To Premises CG 20 13 04 13
Additional Insured Vendors CG 20 15 04 13
Additional Insured Mortgagee, Assignee Or Receiver CG 20 18 04 13
Additional Insured Executors, Administrators, Trustees Or Beneficiaries CG 20 23 04 13
Additional Insured Owners Or Other Interests From Whom Labor Has Been Leased CG 20 24 04 13
Additional Insured Designated Person Or Organization CG 20 26 04 13
Additional Insured Co-Owner Of Insured Premises CG 20 27 04 13
Additional Insured Lessor Of Leased Equipment CG 20 28 04 13
Additional Insured Grantor Of Franchise CG 20 29 04 13
Oil Or Gas Operations Non-Operating, Working Interests CG 20 30 04 13
Additional Insured Engineers, Architects Or Surveyors CG 20 31 04 13
Additional Insured Engineers, Architects Or Surveyors Not Engaged By The Named Insured CG 20 32 04 13
Additional Insured Owners, Lessees Or Contractors — Automatic Status When Required In Construction Agreement With You CG 20 33 04 13
Additional Insured Lessor Of Leased Equipment Automatic Status When Required In Lease Agreement With You CG 20 34 04 13
Additional Insured — Grantor Of Licenses — Automatic Status When Required By Licensor CG 20 35 04 13
Additional Insured — Grantor Of Licenses CG 20 36 04 13
Additional Insured — Owners, Lessees Or Contractors — Completed Operations CG 20 37 04 13
Additional Insured — Owners, Lessees Or Contractors — Automatic Status For Other Parties When Required In Written Construction Agreement CG 20 38 04 13
Exclusion — Designated Professional Services CG 21 16 04 13
Amendment Of Liquor Liability Exclusion CG 21 50 04 13
Amendment Of Liquor Liability Exclusion — Exception For Scheduled Premises Or Activities CG 21 51 04 13
Exclusion — Financial Services CG 21 52 04 13
Exclusion — Funeral Services CG 21 56 04 13
Exclusion — Counseling Services CG 21 57 04 13
Exclusion — Professional Veterinarian Services CG 21 58 04 13
Exclusion — Diagnostic Testing Laboratories CG 21 59 04 13
Total Pollution Exclusion For Designated Products Or Work CG 21 99 04 13
Exclusion — Inspection, Appraisal And Survey Companies CG 22 24 04 13
Exclusion — Professional Services — Blood Banks CG 22 32 04 13
Exclusion — Testing Or Consulting Errors And Omissions CG 22 33 04 13
Exclusion — Construction Management Errors And Omissions CG 22 34 04 13
Exclusion — Products And Professional Services (Druggists) CG 22 36 04 13
Exclusion — Products And Professional Services (Optical And Hearing Aid Establishments) CG 22 37 04 13
Exclusion — Camps Or Campgrounds CG 22 39 04 13
Exclusion — Engineers, Architects Or Surveyors Professional Liability CG 22 43 04 13
Exclusion — Services Furnished By Health Care Providers CG 22 44 04 13
Exclusion — Specified Therapeutic Or Cosmetic Services CG 22 45 04 13
Exclusion — Insurance And Related Operations CG 22 48 04 13
Exclusion — Failure To Supply CG 22 50 04 13
Pesticide Or Herbicide Applicator — Limited Pollution Coverage CG 22 64 04 13
Druggists CG 22 69 04 13
Real Estate Property Managed CG 22 70 04 13
Colleges Or Schools (Limited Form) CG 22 71 04 13
Colleges Or Schools CG 22 72 04 13
Professional Liability Exclusion — Computer Software CG 22 75 04 13
Professional Liability Exclusion — Health Or Exercise Clubs Or Commercially Operated Health Or Exercise Facilities G 22 76 04 13
Professional Liability Exclusion — Computer Data Processing 22 77 04 13
Exclusion — Contractors — Professional Liability 22 79 04 13
Limited Exclusion — Contractors — Professional Liability 22 80 04 13
Exclusion — Adult Day Care Centers 22 87 04 13
Professional Liability Exclusion — Electronic Data Processing Services And Computer Consulting Or Programming Services 22 88 04 13
Professional Liability Exclusion — Spas Or Personal Enhancement Facilities CG22 90 04 13
Exclusion — Telecommunication Equipment Or Service Providers Errors And Omissions CG22 91 04 13
Lawn Care Services — Limited Pollution Coverage CG22 93 04 13
Limited Exclusion — Personal And Advertising Injury — Lawyers CG22 96 04 13
Exclusion — Internet Service Providers And Internet Access Providers Errors And Omissions CG22 98 04 13
Professional Liability Exclusion — Web Site Designers CG22 99 04 13
Exclusion — Real Estate Agents Or Brokers Errors Or Omissions CG23 01 04 13
Liquor Liability — Bring Your Own Alcohol Establishments CG24 06 04 13
Amendment Of Personal And Advertising Injury Definition CG24 13 04 13
Waiver Of Governmental Immunity CG24 14 04 13
Amendment Of Coverage Territory — Worldwide Coverage CG24 22 04 13
Amendment of Coverage Territory — Additional Scheduled Countries CG24 23 04 13
Amendment Of Coverage Territory — Worldwide Coverage With Specified Exceptions CG24 24 04 13
Amendment Of Insured Contract Definition CG24 26 04 13
Limited Contractual Liability — Railroads CG242 7 04 13
Designated Location(S) Aggregate Limit CG25 14 04 13
Pesticide Or Herbicide Applicator — Limited Pollution Coverage CG28 12 04 13

Sign up for classes today. Either join the University for one low price for the entire agency for all classes and products … or enroll in individual classes. Click here and be ready to learn!