|
|
Beacon Hill Associates, Inc. is a wholesale insurance broker and program administrator, specializing in the placement of environmental insurance and other specialty insurance coverages for agents nationwide.
Beacon Hill Blog
May 18th, 2011
By Amanda Duncan, Senior Vice President and Manager of Underwriter Division
Severe weather continues to wreak havoc across the country. The southeastern region of the United States has just endured devastating losses from a historic tornado outbreak and cleanup will take months, if not years. Excessive rainfall has caused several waterways, including the Mississippi River, to reach flood stage and thus more homes and businesses will be ruined in the coming weeks. Wildfires are burning in parts of the country due to terrible drought conditions, with smoke and fumes being reported hundreds of miles away. And of course, the 2011 hurricane season starts in less than a month and it is never too early to begin storm preparations. These natural disasters cannot be prevented, and the damage they leave behind can include environmental hazards that must be handled promptly and appropriately.
The aftermath of the recent tornado outbreak has left miles of debris and destruction. This debris contains hazardous substances such as friable asbestos, lead paint chips, and toxic chemicals. Past hurricanes have destroyed manufacturing facilities, gas stations, landfills, and petrochemical plants, resulting in chemicals and waste being released into the soil and groundwater. It is still unknown how much oil remains in the Gulf of Mexico from last year’s monumental oil spill; an active hurricane season could bring unexpected pollutants to the shore which will affect beachfront properties.
Any structure affected by a flooding event can and will leave mold to grow long after the water recedes, not to mention residue from other wastes, chemicals, and fluids that are flushed out of buildings as the floodwaters rise. Residents coming back to their properties to assess the damage will also be exposed to bacteria and infections that could lead to serious illnesses. Wildfires can spread quickly and change direction before firefighters can gain control, impacting any facility in its path. Should the fire come into contact with chemicals or other materials, pollutants may be released into the air and the ramifications of air pollution would be felt miles away.
The scenarios listed above will not be covered via a standard CGL or property policy, and the bodily injury/property damage claims will be massive.
Your clients may not think they have an environmental exposure from their daily operations, but as we all know, the weather can be unpredictable. Your client may be a property owner or manager, a manufacturer, a farmer, a doctor, a landfill owner or anything in between. It is important to note that they all have a pollution exposure. These organizations should be made aware of the coverages needed to properly protect them in the event of an environmental claim. To learn more about the insurance products available for these risks, the best policy configurations, and how to access the right insurance markets, contact your environmental wholesaler for more information.
To aid in the disaster relief effort, visit the sites below for information on making a donation or volunteering your time in the cleanup:
American Red Cross
Feeding America
The Salvation Army

Tags: Advice for Agents, Exposures, Insurance Market News Posted in Articles | No Comments »
May 4th, 2011
As the United States recovers from the economic crisis over the last few years, we are once again seeing growth in the acquisition and transfer of properties. The issues that arise from the sale or purchase of these properties at times can be a Pandora’s Box. The options to either borrow money to finance the purchase of a property, or to use your own money to do so, does not change the driving need in today’s marketplace to have environmental liability insurance in place to protect the investment.
There are many issues that must be addressed when thinking about Site Pollution coverage for these types of risks:
- What has the property previously been used for?
- What will the property be used for in the future?
- What policy limit of insurance will cover your contractual needs or make you feel safe in the event of a loss?
- Are you concerned with first party triggers or will third party be enough?
- Will you want pre-existing coverage, new conditions only, or both?
With answers to all the questions above, your wholesale broker will be able to advise you on the specific coverage you may need and the number of insurance carriers that are willing to write this type of coverage. Each insurance company has its own unique form, so it is crucial to carefully review them to make sure there is a complete understanding of what it does—and doesn’t—cover. It is important that most properties have Site Pollution Liability insurance, which is designed to cover claims arising from pollution releases at, on, or emanating from a specific scheduled location. Securing Site Pollution Liability insurance is a key coverage to have since claims arising from a pollution condition from a property may not be covered under the General liability or Property coverage form.
Who buys Site Pollution Liability?
- Property Owners, Operators, and Managers.
- Industrial facilities, including recyclers, storage sites, landfills, warehouses, manufacturers, etc.
- Any purchasers or sellers of properties.
The minimum premiums can start in the $5,000 to $10,000 range with deductibles as low as $10,000; but, on average, coverage ranges between $25,000 and $50,000. Both price and deductible can go as high as the risk demands.
The EPA continues to set regulations on how businesses operate so that they are held accountable for their actions and any issues resulting from them. An insurance claim on an uninsured property can have devastating repercussions. Take this opportunity to help your clients protect themselves from a potentially disastrous financial loss and secure the future of their businesses and workforces.
Site Pollution Claim Scenarios
- A property owner had his drinking water well tested prior to selling his land. Testing revealed that the well contained an alarmingly high concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons. Further investigation revealed that the source of contamination was several dozen drums of waste oil and maintenance fluids buried on a neighboring farm. Though the previous farm owner buried the drums, the current owner was nevertheless responsible for disposal of the drums, soil and groundwater cleanup, and bodily injury and property damage claims submitted by the neighboring property owner. Total costs exceeded $1,000,000 and caused the farmer’s bankruptcy.
- A large college disposed of its science lab wastes in a 53-year-old, 20,000-gallon underground storage tank. The underground tank ruptured and contaminated the soil, the private wells and the groundwater that flowed into a nearby reservoir. Several third parties sued the university, with claims totaling $450,000. In addition, costs to clean up the reservoir amounted to $1.1 million.
- A maintenance garage that used solvents for parts washing performed the work over a drain leading to an on-site septic system. Over time, the septic system leach fields migrated into the surrounding soils and groundwater. At the time of the septic system closure and conversion to a public sewer system, the contamination was discovered. Site remediation involved soil removal and the installation of a groundwater recovery system. The costs exceeded $720,000.
- A strip mall owner upgraded the heating system for all of his tenants. While working in one of the stores, the contractor failed to vent the system properly, causing a release of carbon monoxide. Store employees and customers complaining of headaches and nausea were rushed to the local hospital. As a result, several bodily injury suits were filed against the strip mall owner.
- A warehouse utilizing an on-site septic system experienced periodic chemical and contaminant spills when floors were hosed down and the washwater entered the system. After some time, samples from neighboring residential wells showed that contamination originated at the warehouse location. Soil and groundwater cleanup costs exceeded $365,000.

Tags: Insuring a Property, Premises Pollution, Site Pollution Posted in Environmental Insurance | No Comments »
April 11th, 2011
Access to the environmental insurance marketplace. Simply put, this is one of the main reasons why agents from around the country work with environmental wholesale brokers to find environmental coverage for their clients.
Having options is a great way to demonstrate your expertise and commitment to your clients. Clearly, this is a good approach with new business opportunities, but marketing a renewal and encouraging your client to switch carriers on an existing account need to be carefully considered. In today’s market, many accounts are marketed to try to achieve a better price. While that is certainly a worthwhile goal, changing carriers on a renewal account may cause real problems.
Here are a few issues to consider:
- The agent needs to be fully aware of the specific coverage differences between the expiring policy and the new policy. Although both forms may be appropriate for the insured’s needs, there may be discrepancies between them that could potentially create gaps in coverage.
- There will always be differences in the carrier offering the coverage. Where one may have a solid A.M. Best rating and a history of handling claims effectively, another may have a lower rating and not have a successful claim track record. Service and stability add a great deal of value.
- If the agent is aware that there are enhancements on the expiring policy that may not seem too significant; yet they are not offered on the newer form—and a claim is filed—the agency may be held liable and have an E&O issue.
- Aggressively marketing a risk every year gives the insured a reputation in the marketplace. Many accounts do not get reviewed by companies because they see them every year and never write them. Unfortunately, there may be a time where the insured really needs to switch carriers and the carrier declines to quote.
Here are some steps that brokers will want to take if you are considering marketing an account at renewal:
1 – Review the account 90 days before expiration.
2 – Discuss the coverage options that may exist in the market to assess if there is a better product being offered.
3 – Assuming the insured is happy with the coverage and carrier on the risk, it is important to determine the target price or rate goals for the renewal.
4 – Confirm with the insured that if that premium or rate goal can be achieved with the incumbent carrier, they will renew.
5 – If the carrier cannot accommodate the requests, there is still time to go to other carriers and try to achieve the insured’s coverage and cost goals elsewhere.
This allows you to give the insured what they are looking for without running the risk of reducing their coverage or any of the other pitfalls of moving coverage to a different carrier. Even if alternative proposals from other carriers are requested, agents are still encouraged to send renewal information to the incumbent carrier. The insured should not move the program elsewhere without comparing any new proposals to the expiring policy.
For more information, please call us at 1-800-596-2156 or email us.

Tags: Advice for Agents, Renewals, Tools for Agents Posted in Environmental Insurance | No Comments »
March 30th, 2011
There are many reasons that an insured may discontinue a policy: retiring, selling, going out of business, coverage no longer required, etc. This is an important time to examine the policy for claims-made coverage and determine the provisions outlined for offering and obtaining Extended Reporting Period (ERP) options.
An ERP (a.k.a. “tail”) is an endorsement subject to an additional premium, purchased to extend the window for reporting a claim. This should not be mistaken as an extension of the coverage period; the occurrence must have taken place after the policy’s stated retroactive date and before the end of the policy period. Dependent on the carrier, ERPs are generally offered for a maximum period of three to five years with shorter windows available.
The prime reason for seeking this option from the carrier for your insured is to give them more protection. What if a claim is made against the insured for an incident that occurred on the last day that the policy was in effect, but is not reported until three months later? Without an ERP, once a claims-made policy or policy with claims-made coverage parts expires, the window of protection is effectively closed for the insured. Wouldn’t you want this option from your agency if it were your coverage?
For more information, contact your Beacon Hill Associates representative at 1-800-596-2156.

Tags: Claims, ERP, Renewals, Tools for Agents Posted in Environmental Insurance Advice | No Comments »
March 23rd, 2011
by Amanda Duncan, Senior Vice President & Manager of Beacon Hill’s Underwriting Division
Have you ever read an article pertaining to environmental issues, or perhaps looked through an environmental report and noticed the same acronyms appearing over and over again? Or you are reviewing questions from your underwriter which include technical jargon you don’t encounter on a daily basis? Is your insured looking to you for help because they now need to comply with environmental regulations? Below are essential phrases and abbreviations to help better explain the colorful world of environmental topics:
ACRONYMS:
RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
CERCLA (aka Superfund) – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
TSD – Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities
SWMU – Solid Waste Management Units
TCLP – Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure
VOC – Volatile Organic Compound
PCBs – Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PRP – Potentially Responsible Party
POTW – Publicly Owned Treatment Works
BOD – Biochemical Oxygen Demand
NPDES – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
HSWA – Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
NODs – Non Owned Disposal sites
WWTP – Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPL – National Priorities List
SARA – Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
CWA – Clean Water Act
TSCA – Toxic Substances Control Act
MCLs – Maximum Contaminant Levels
DEFINITIONS:
Hazardous Waste – Wastes (solids, sludges, liquids, and containerized gases) other than radioactive (and infectious) wastes which, by reason of their chemical activity or toxic, explosive, corrosive, or other characteristics, cause danger or likely will cause danger to health or the environment, whether alone or when coming into contact with other waste.
Large Quantity Generators – facilities which generate over 1000 kg of waste per month.
Small Quantity Generators – facilities which generate less than 1000 kg of waste per month.
Solid Waste – garbage, refuse, sludge from waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community activities.
Potentially Responsible Parties – present and/or past owners, operators, generators, and transporters of contaminated sites.
Treatment facility – a facility which changes the physical or chemical characteristics of a waste, or degrades or destroys waste constituents, using any of a wide variety of physical, chemical, thermal, or biological methods.
Environmental monitoring – collecting samples of the environmental media and testing for the presence of hazardous substances that may have been released into the atmosphere.
Regulatory compliance – environmental regulations enforced by government entities to manage waste.
Leachate – combination of the direct precipitation infiltration and any liquids squeezed out as a result of consolidation of landfill waste materials.
Landfill – permanent placement of waste on or below land surface.
Fracking – a slang term for hydraulic fracturing. Fracking refers to the procedure of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into cracks to force them further open.
Carbon footprint – the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused by an organization, event, product, or person.
Wetland mitigation – the replacement of wetland functions through the creation or restoration of wetlands.
As environmental coverages become more widely understood and companies are more aware of their environmental exposures, agents will receive more requests for environmental insurance. Having a higher comfort level with industry terms such as the ones included in our glossary above will allow you to more helpfully advise your current clients, and to also take advantage of potential opportunities to work with new classes of business.

Tags: Advice for Agents, Environmental Insurance Terms, Tools for Agents Posted in Environmental Insurance Advice | No Comments »
March 10th, 2011
by Allison McGreal
Assistant Vice President, Underwriting Division
A typical Commercial General Liability Policy will exclude contractual liability which “indemnifies a railroad for bodily injury or property damage arising out of construction or demolition operations within 50 feet of any railroad property and which affects any railroad bridge or trestle, tracks, roadbeds, tunnel, underpass or crossing”. You may notice that the work doesn’t have to be performed within 50 feet of the tracks. If your client is performing these contracting operations within 50 feet of any railroad property, this is a significant exclusion and should be addressed via endorsement to the CGL policy.
Most carriers using an ISO GL form will offer a CG 24 17 Contractual Liability-Railroads endorsement to “buy back” some of this excluded coverage. It replaces the definition of “Insured Contract” and removes the above language from the exclusion. Carriers prefer to limit the endorsement to a scheduled railroad and a designated job site, as this endorsement is usually driven by a specific contract. However, many will consider using blanket verbiage. The cost for this coverage will vary based on the scope of services, limits required, and size of the project, but because this limit is typically a shared limit within the CGL liability limit, there can be some flexibility in pricing.
Agents sometimes confuse the addition of the CG 24 17 endorsement to the Insured’s policy with a separate Railroad Protective Liability Policy (RPL). ISO offers “Railroad Protective Liability Coverage Form” (CG 00 35) and many carriers use this form as well. The RPL policy is provided to insure the railroad, not the contractor performing the work. The railroad may require a policy in their name for any work done by a specific contractor at a specific jobsite on or near the railroad property. The contractor will be listed on the declarations page, however, no coverage exists within this policy for the contractor. The contractor is not the insured under a RPL policy. The “catch” is that the contractor is the one responsible for purchasing the RPL policy on behalf of the railroad. Contractors may build this premium into their initial bids to offset the extra expense. The CG 24 17 endorsement and CG 00 35 form are compatible, but are not interchangeable.
Railroad Protective Liability polices are usually required for a contract prior to the commencement of work. The railroad may have specific limits they need, typically ranging up to $2,000,000 / $6,000,000. Because this is a separate liability policy, pricing may be subject to certain minimum premiums and the carrier may require that they also write the contractor’s primary CGL policy as a condition of binding RPL.
To obtain a quotation for either of the above railroad coverages, the carrier will typically need the following information:
- Name and address of the railroad
- Description of services performed
- Limit of liability required
- Duration of the project
- Location where work will be performed
As an agent, you may have a site remediation contracting account hired to clean up contaminated soil from an industrial facility, for example. Many of these industrial sites are either adjacent to a rail yard or have railroad tracks running through the property. Without the CG 24 17 endorsement, your client may not have any coverage for their excavation operations.
It is important for agents to distinguish between the Contractual Liability-Railroads endorsement and the Railroad Protective Liability policy. If a contractor is required to provide RPL, the agent should be offering the CG 24 17 endorsement to the contractors CGL policy.

Tags: Environmental Insurance Advice, Insurance for Contractors, Railroad Protective Liability, Tools for Agents Posted in Environmental Insurance | No Comments »
February 9th, 2011
By William Pritchard Jr., ERM
Printed in the February 2011 issue of American Agent & Broker
2010 saw a rapid expansion of the environmental/pollution insurance marketplace in the face of daunting conditions. Why this growth has occurred, and what it means to an agency, are important to understand. The performance of this niche clearly illustrates the efforts being made to find success in our evolving market, and agents that can correctly tap into it will see significant return on their investment.
In 1990, four companies offered dedicated environmental insurance products. In 2000 there were closer to 10. At the end of 2010, there were at least 40 companies with environmental practices. One thousand percent growth over 20 years is significant, but even more significant is the growth in the last 3 years, from 20 to 40. Companies including XL (formerly ECS), Chartis (formerly AIG), Zurich, Markel, Liberty, Chubb and others have been involved almost from the beginning. In the face of the most difficult market most can remember, why has environmental been such a draw for carriers? And what does this explosive growth mean for the insurance agent?
At the root of the growth in environmental carriers is the underlying shift in how insurance works. Carriers have long underwritten to very small profit goals, recognizing investment income as the true driver of their profitability for their investors. Equity market returns of 10 percent or greater were the norm for many years. Carriers generated premium, reserved conservatively, putting that money into IBNR, and saw the investment income profits role in. This model served our industry very well for many years and through many market cycles.
Unfortunately, this underlying dynamic has changed. The investment market is no longer able to return such generous results to its investors, and this is in turn is forcing companies to find their profits elsewhere. The only viable solution is to try to underwrite accounts more profitably than before.
While this seems like a simple task, it is anything but. Due to the difficult economic environment over the last 3 years, the insurance industry is struggling to write as much premium as in the past, not to mention at a greater profit. As whole sections of the economy lose value, the insurers that cover them generate less in premium. With current unemployment figures hovering at just under 10 percent, the industry that rates based on payroll has taken a real hit. Adding to this the anemic overall growth of the economy, and you end up with carriers fighting for more slices of a shrunken pie.
Add to this the reduction of loss reserves at many companies. Carriers traditionally bring reserves down as prior year results have allowed, dropping those dollars right to their bottom lines. Unfortunately, given the lack of investment returns, they are no longer filling that reserve pool back up as aggressively as they once did. The money that eventually came out and bolstered the bottom line is rapidly going away. If a company can maintain strong underwriting profitability, this is not a huge problem. If, however, carriers have to fight for business and write risks for less than they want to, this can quickly become a significant long term issue.
The final piece of the puzzle is the dramatic influx of capital into the industry as a whole. While the insurance industry has been struggling, the promise of a decent enough return excites investors into the marketplace, especially compared with the return the equity markets have yielded. Over the last 5 years there has been a steady influx of money into the insurance industry, all of it seeking a home and a respectable ROI.
So how does this all lead to an increase in environmental programs over the last several years? The answer is simple. When environmental business was first written in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, carriers had no idea how to price it. Coming off of horrific asbestos-related claims, carriers were very cautious in how they priced these products. Over the intervening 30 years, it has been shown that environmental exposures are not significantly more challenging than many other casualty lines. While there are of course exceptions in certain areas, the general consensus is that environmental risks are more profitable than many other mature market segments.
This is where things get interesting. While this may be true, it is by no means universally true. Over the last 10 years carriers have blended coverages to sell under the heading “environmental.” Many of these combine CGL and products with site or contractors pollution. While the environmental component of the package may in fact be profitable, there is ample evidence that casualty business is, and will always be, casualty business. If you write tough products, you are going to have some real claims. If you write a combined CGL and contractors pollution policy for a tank installation contractor, you are more likely to see claims from people falling into holes than you are from pollution. So while “environmental” insurance has proven itself to be very profitable over the last 30 years, it is mutating into something different where the genes of its more standard components may well be dominating the results.
Another challenge is the people. Environmental insurance has had a very short and squat pyramid; broad base but not much room at the top. Over the last 10 years many talented men and women have risen in the ranks of environmental insurers. Many of them have been looking for the next step into senior management. Heading an environmental unit is often the crown jewel of someone’s career. Many of these people are looking hard for the opportunity to jump their careers to the next level, and are aggressively reaching out to carriers without an environmental unit to try to create the job they seek. All of the above pieces have lined up over the last several years. We have an influx of capital, we have carriers looking for ways to write more business more profitably, we have a market segment with a history of profitability and we have people willing to lead these new divisions. Given all of the above, it’s a wonder we don’t have even more markets focusing on environmental accounts.
What does this mean for an agent? Many may think choice is a good thing, and in many respects it is. Environmental insurance is a class of business where individual underwriter appetite often dictates what a carrier will write, or at least will try to write aggressively. Having only one or two relationships leaves an agent at the mercy of one or two individuals. If, on the other hand, an agent can go to 40 different markets, he or she should never have to worry about any single underwriter blocking the path to success.
While on the surface this makes some sense, it is a very dangerous path for an agent to follow for a few reasons. The characteristics of a good carrier relationship differ for many agencies, but in general they include carrier stability and commitment to the line, underwriter knowledge and responsiveness, solid claims handling system and track record and proven service capabilities. All of these components add up to not only success writing an account, but long-term success in servicing and maintaining the business. Compounding growth only comes through happy insureds renewing year after year. If claims are not being paid and endorsements not delivered, it makes every renewal a fight instead of an affirmation.
Determine your Partners
The environmental marketplace has grown quickly, and the development of many programs has been somewhat mixed. There are surface indications that agents can review to determine if a market will be a good partner for them.
The first is the commitment carriers have made to environmental insurance. Are they in this for the long haul or are they simply trying to write some quick business? A gauge of this commitment is their staffing situations. How many employees have they hired? How many offices or locations do they have? Are they making enough of a commitment for an agent to know that they can adequately service the business they are writing, and that they are in it for the long run? We have seen markets enter this arena recently with two or three employees, and we have seen others enter with 15. Clearly one is making a bigger commitment than the other.
A similar issue is the claims handing staff. Has it hired at least a few key claims people to handle environmental claims? Environmental claims are not the same as regular casualty claims, and people with experience in this area are critical for long term success of a program.
The final key component is management and underwriting staffing. Is the person the insurer hired to put the program together an experienced environmental and insurance professional? A senior underwriter making the move to management can be fraught with problems, as the management role is so complex. Does the person coming on board have the background to be successful? Also, who has been hired as underwriters? Do they have experience and credibility in the marketplace? Again, seasoned experienced underwriters and a structure to enable them to succeed are very important.
Agents need to partner with companies that are committed to the line of business. A company that hopes to be doing this in 10 years is far more likely to responsibly deal with the issues that will inevitably come up than one who is in it for short term premium volume. While the above do not guarantee commitment, they certainly indicate it.
Once an agent is satisfied with this, the next important component is reviewing and understanding the coverage being offered. No two environmental policies are the same, and there is huge diversity in the type of coverage being offered. Knowing what you’re offering the client is crucial, certainly as crucial as knowing the carrier you are offering it from.
Given the above, an agent may find that the best way to access environmental carriers is to go through a specialty broker. In the current marketplace these brokers typically pay the same commissions that direct carriers would, and give the added advantage of having done a lot of the above leg work for the agent. The same criteria need to be utilized to make this selection as was used for the carrier review. Longevity, commitment, expertise, reputation are all import and easily judged items. Spending a few moments researching the web and talking to other agents and carriers can bring you excellent choices for partners.
The environmental market is still growing fast. One of the positive offshoots of so much competition is a huge increase in marketing. All of these carriers, and the many brokers focusing on the line of business, are marketing the coverage. This is leading to an increased awareness at all levels. More job specs are requiring pollution coverage, as are landlords, lenders and attorneys. This increase in exposure is a definite plus for agents seeking new coverages to offer their clients.
Last year’s BP oil spill has been yet another driver of increased interest. Many of the business impacted by the spill, from coastal property owners to people making their livings along the Gulf Coast, could have been protected by the right environmental coverage. Many businesses have learned from this situation, and other lesser-known ones in their own back yards, and are reaching out to their agents to discuss what coverage is available to them. Most insureds can talk about a similar business or an associate they know that has had an environmental issue come up. This increases the population buying these products from hundreds in the early days to hundreds of thousands today.
The evolving insurance industry has challenged many but has also created opportunities unlike any seen before. Agents wield a great deal of power in this market, being the gate keepers to their clients. With so many agents and carriers scrambling to find business, and in some cases willing to do almost anything for it, the potential fallout is huge. Inadequate coverage, carriers gone after a year or two, and similar problems will force many agencies and carriers to the sidelines. Those that take time to consider the choices they are making, and the long term ramifications of them, will rise above their competition. This is already beginning to happen, as some are seeing significant growth in new business and strong renewal retention while others are falling fast. As the economy continues to improve, and with it the equity markets, the frenzy of the last few years will fade, and competence and professionalism will prevail. A solid environmental strategy is only one component, albeit an important one, of the thoughtful agencies’ strategy to continue to succeed in our new marketplace.

Tags: Advice for Agents, Current Events, Environmental Insurance, Insurance Market News, Pollution Insurance, Tools for Agents Posted in Articles | No Comments »
January 5th, 2011
Most areas of the country are being rocked by winter weather—freezing temperatures, ice, snow, and cold winds. Many businesses see an increase in work during the winter months, especially those that specialize in any kind of machinery maintenance. For many companies, cold weather means a significant increase in projects involving heating systems, plumbing, snow removal, chimney maintenance, fuel delivery, tank cleaning, etc. It’s crucial that these companies have coverage in place to protect themselves from pollution claims.
Some of the companies that see an increase of activity in winter months include:
- HVAC Contractors – Maintenance for heating units
- Plumbers – Fixing frozen pipes and busted water heaters
- Auto Repair and Vehicle Maintenance Facilities
- Heating and Oil Contractors
- Chimney Sweeps/Maintenance Contractors
- Snow Removal/Street & Road Contractors
Make sure your clients aren’t “left out in the cold” this winter; call them today to make sure they have the right coverage for their operations.

Tags: Advice for Agents, Exposures Posted in Environmental Insurance Advice | No Comments »
December 9th, 2010
As concerns grow about radon exposure and dust from granite countertop installation, it is important to focus on the need for environmental coverage for this class of contractors.
In the last few years, granite has become a fashionable and trendy building material due to its natural beauty, shine, durability, and scratch/heat resistance. Granite is an igneous stone, mainly formed through volcanic material such as magma. It is primarily made of quartz, feldspar, and potassium, and is an extremely hard material that is easier to maintain than marble. Installing granite countertops in homes and offices has created a huge amount of business for granite countertop contractors—the service and installation has become a very lucrative component of the building and remodeling industry. With the prevalence of granite in homes and offices today, there has been some recent concern over the pollution exposures for people working with, and living around, this popular stone.
Measuring and cutting granite takes a great deal of precision and is almost always outsourced to contractors specializing in granite countertop installation. These professionals will take very exact measurements for the countertops and create a template, which is used to cut the stone. As you may imagine, the dust associated with cutting granite is composed of very fine particles that can be extremely hazardous if inhaled into the lungs. When exposed to even low levels of granite dust over a long period of time, there is a potential for different types of serious respiratory illnesses. In addition to countertop contractors having this exposure, many companies will let customers come to their facilities to choose their own slabs of granite for their countertops. Inviting people onto the facility presents an additional pollution liability risk for these companies, since there is usually a large amount of dust on the company premises.
Another exposure concern with granite is the potential for it to emit radon gas into the air. “Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas found in soils, rock, and water. It is the largest source of exposure to naturally occurring radiation…The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded after an exhaustive review that radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. after cigarette smoking,” as explained on the Environmental Protection Agency website. Although allegations that granite countertops may emit toxic levels of radon are still in question, many government officials suggest that homes and offices test the granite for this exposure.
Contractors providing granite products and installation need to be aware of these risks and take the necessary precautions in order to prevent these health hazards and be protected from environmental insurance claims. A pollution policy would help to reduce the potential for an out-of-pocket claim, and would work to further secure the future success and welfare of companies specializing in granite and their employees.

Tags: Contractors Pollution Liability, Environmental Exposures, Environmental Insurance, Products Pollution Posted in Environmental Insurance Advice | No Comments »
October 26th, 2010
The self storage industry has been one of the fastest-growing sectors of the United States commercial real estate industry in the last 30 years. There are now over 52,000 primary self storage facilities in the country, and in 2008 the industry had total sales in excess of $20 billion.* Self storage companies all over the country are acquiring new customers as people relocate and sell their homes due to the economy. Additionally, as of 2009, more than 700,000 self storage units nationwide are rented to military personnel who are serving away from their homes.
The rapid growth has forced self storage owners and managers to protect their premises from the increased activity that these sites have experienced. One of the main ways they can do this is by having a solid pollution liability insurance policy to cover themselves against potential problems that could occur from environmental exposures.
Self storage owners and managers should consider securing a Site Specific Pollution Liability policy, which will provide coverage for supervised and unsupervised self storage facilities throughout the U.S. Coverage can include: third party liability for bodily injury and property damage claims, first party cleanup costs, and defense costs; Transportation Pollution Liability coverage for waste hauled by the insured or contracted carriers; off-site coverage for non-owned waste disposal sites; automatic Extended Reporting Period (ERP) with optional ERP of up to three years; and an optional Mold enhancement.
Claims caused by a pollution condition may not be covered via the insured’s General Liability or Property form, so it is important for these organizations to purchase more protection. Coverage can be tailored specifically for self storage facilities and their exposures, such as abandoned, potentially hazardous materials, as well as mold.
What Potential Exposures Does a Self Storage Facility Have?
- Abandoned hazardous waste
- Midnight dumping
- Mold
- Hazardous runoff during rain events.
- The accumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil.
- Misuse of self storage spaces involving activities unknown to the facility owner or manager.
- And many other exposures…
Many self storage facilities are affiliated with various associations dedicated to educating members about the challenges present in this type of operation. Some of them also provide information to members of the self storage facility industry on regulations and insurance recommendations made to these professionals. Now is a great opportunity to reach out to your self storage facility clients to make sure they have the most effective coverage in place.
* National Self Storage Association Website

Tags: Advice for Agents, Premises Pollution, Self Storage, Site Pollution Posted in Environmental Insurance Advice | No Comments »
|
|