This language was included in the bidding requirements from a railroad, though it was never reviewed by the insurance agent or underwriter:
“It is agreed that the policy or policies of insurance evidenced by this certificate covers the liability assumed by the insured in connection with work pursuant to the Agreement dated December 27, 2018 by and between the City of _____ & _____ Railroad, including work upon railroad property, within railroad right of way and in close proximity to operating railroad tracks.”
The construction contract with the general contractor who won the $24M contract required that the above language be added to the contractor’s CGL policy.
Of course, the insurer refused to manuscript any such language. Aside from any regulatory restraints on manuscripting endorsements to filed forms by admitted carriers, what is problematic is the assertion that the insurance policy “COVERS the liability assumed by the insured….”
For this statement to be true, the CGL policy would have to have a remarkably broad insuring agreement, NO exclusions, and NO limits. Many, if not most, contractual indemnity agreements are without limit or cause and are uninsurable.
This illustrates the importance of qualified personnel carefully reviewing contracts prior to the bidding process to ensure that all insurance requirements can be met. Otherwise, winning bidders may find themselves immediately in breach of contract.
Photo by Alexandre Prévot 
Bill Wilson
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- The Invisible But Potentially Catastrophic Homeowners Exclusion That’s Not An Exclusion - September 19, 2023
- Revisiting the Illusory Coverage Assertion Following a Claim Denial - September 19, 2023
- FREE Webcast: How to Survive and Thrive in a Hard Market - August 1, 2023
The problem then I say with this contract is that it includes railroad protective liability
Bill, I agree that qualified personnel should review a contractors proposed contact with another party before offering a bid, but what agency or brokerage has a ‘ qualified person”, and what is the criteria needed to establish whom is qualified. ? If in fact you are offering a comment on a possible assumption of risk are you not in fact praticing contract law ?. If in fact a contractors bid was accepted with the assumed liability included and was found to be in breach, could the “qualified person” who did the review also be suspect. E&O is clearly at risk. Maybe it makes more sense for the qualified person, to stay out of this , send the contract in question to the ins co, and let there legal team respond. mean while the agency has lost a client because the client lost the work. in the real world the perception is contractors are Teflon coated because they can do no wrong, untill it all goes wrong. DWM
Some do, many don’t. I know agencies who have contract analysts better than the attorneys that drafted the contracts. I don’t think reading a contract for the loss exposures and insurable risks is practicing contract law any more than doing the same thing for insurance contracts is practicing contract law. There is certainly an E&O exposure in doing this. And there’s an excellent marketing opportunity in doing it as well.