Archive for September, 2009

Why should your client always report an incident to the carrier?

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Question: Why advise an insurance carrier of any incident or circumstance that may give rise to a claim, rather than wait until an actual claim is made?

Answer: It is important for an insured to remember that all potential incidents or circumstances that may develop into a claim should be reported to the insurer. Not only does diligent claim reporting protect the insured’s interests, it can also provide an opportunity to head off possible future litigation. Additionally, because most policies contain an exclusion for incidents or circumstances that were known by the insured, a claim made at a later date has the potential to be denied under this exclusion.

Many Claims Made policy forms require the insured to notify the carrier of any incidents, and several specifically address this issue with what is commonly known as “Circumstance Reporting” provisions. These provisions vary from carrier to carrier but generally require the insured to advise the carrier if anything has occurred. Any claim subsequently made against the insured because of the incident or circumstance would then be treated as a claim first made and reported to the insurer at the time the incident was originally reported. How carriers treat these reported circumstances varies: some lock in the incident date forever while others set a time limit for the reported incident to manifest into a full claim. Carriers may undertake an investigation of the incident immediately, if in their opinion there is a likelihood that the incident will become a full claim.

When placing Claims Made coverage for your insureds, it is important that circumstance reporting is adequately reviewed and addressed. At Beacon Hill Associates, we continue to review the forms we work with so that we can provide you with the coverage and enhancements you client needs to be adequately covered.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to StumbleUpon

Combined Coverages for Environmental Facilities

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

You may have heard that several industries anticipate a monetary payout from the impending economic stimulus legislations to be used for upgrades, improvements, and overall growth. One of the groups that will benefit from these funds funneling into the market is environmental facilities—landfills, recycling centers, wastewater treatment facilities, transfer stations, and alternative energy production plants.

As we all know, pollution coverage is generally excluded from a standard General Liability policy. Obvious exposures that affect environmental facilities include, but are not limited to: chemical leaks from onsite containers/tanks, toxic fumes emitted into the air, and untreated wastewater discharged into the public drinking water supply. However, pollutants are not always hazardous! A pollutant includes dust that can be kicked up by vehicles entering/leaving a landfill or wastewater run-off into a nearby stream. Even foul odors from transfer stations can require action, should a 3rd party make a claim.

A combined General Liability/Site Pollution Liability policy provides the best protection for environmental facilities, and is potentially the most cost effective solution as well.  The pollution exclusion via the General Liability form is adequately addressed by the addition of Site Pollution Liability coverage; therefore, these facilities and their neighbors (like you and I) can all breathe a bit easier.

Available enhancements to packaged coverage for environmental facilities:

  • - Packages can add Contractors Pollution Liability/ Professional Liability (Applies if insured is performing any contracting/consulting work offsite for clients; CGL coverage part excludes pollution and professional liability, creating a gap in coverage.)
  • - Transportation Pollution Liability for any over the road exposure
  • - Blanket Additional Insured and Waiver of Subrogation
  • - Separate Follow form Excess policy available.
  • - Separate Business Auto policy for insured’s fleet available for both hazardous and non-hazardous hauling exposures.

Help your environmental facility clients allocate some of their stimulus money to purchase coverage that will protect them in the long run. The bottom line is that facility owners simply can’t afford to forego environmental insurance when a potential claim may make their financial outlook even more fragile.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to StumbleUpon