Cgl Insuring Agreement
Until recently, the Tennessee Supreme Court at Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Moore – Associates ruled that (1) defective treatment may constitute a „deposit“ under the CGL insurance contract, (2) damage caused by the defective treatment of a subcontractor, and (3) damage to the work of the insured contractor resulting from the defective treatment of a subcontractor, are not excluded. When an insurance organization wishes or must limit the meaning of a term, the word or phrase is explicitly defined in the policy. If a word or phrase is not defined, it takes on its „daily“ meaning. ISO explicitly defines and controls the application of six terms in the Guarantee Agreement A: the legal obligation is the second essential requirement of the Part A insurance contract. The directive is partly „a. We pay the amounts that the insured is legally required to pay as damages for „personal injury“ or „property damage“ to the application of this insurance. The limitations created by these six terms have a direct impact on the 10 specific coverage limits contained in the coverage agreement A, as described in the next section. If the current exclusions are verified, there is a disclaimer that covers contractual liability positions other than those imposed in an „insurance contract“. If the CGL insurance policy only covers liability insurance, as many courts have claimed, how can coverage be available for „insured contracts“ if coverage is never triggered? Furthermore, there is no historical indication that the CGL Directive has waived the above guarantee, with the exception of simplifying the language and deferring it to the definition section of the directive…. „If, as American Family asserts, contractual losses are never „events“ of CGL for the purposes of the initial coverage subsidy, then commercial risk exclusions are absolutely not necessary.
Commercial risk exclusions eliminate coverage for property damage suffered by the insured or the insured`s product – a liability that can generally be invoked between the parties under the terms of the contract and not in fact unlawful between the parties. If the insurance agreement never provides coverage for this type of liability as an initial definition matter, it is not necessary to explicitly exclude it. Why should the insurance industry exclude damage to its own work or product of the insured when the damage would not have been at all due to a covered „event“? Similarly, in Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999), the California Supreme Court rejected numerous Court of Appeal decisions that the insurance contract „legally agrees to pay damages“ concerns only non-righthood, since nothing is in the language „… offers a particular or legalistic meaning for the expression… A sensible layman would certainly understand that he is „legally obliged to pay“ to refer to a legal and enforceable obligation, whether because of contractual liability or not. Any definition serves to limit coverage in one way or another by limiting the scope of the term.