Banks Improperly Requesting Extra Insured Standing – Half 2

Our good friend, Christopher Boggs, Chief Marketing consultant with Boggs Threat and Insurance coverage Consulting, returns to answer an ideal remark left on his latest submit. He’ll inform you extra beneath. Joyful studying.

A number of days in the past I revealed an article entitled, “Banks Ought to NOT be Asking for Extra Insured Standing.” On this article I argued that banks ought to NOT be requiring further insured standing on the borrower’s legal responsibility coverage as a situation of the mortgage.

After a number of makes an attempt at posting this text in numerous places I lastly bought a response from a celebration defending a financial institution’s request to be a further insured. The response learn:

Lenders have deep pockets so are sometimes named, whether or not rightly or not, as co-defendants together with the borrower when somebody suffers harm or injury due to the borrower’s operations. This may be a difficulty significantly within the context of loans secured by actual property. As a result of the lender is at arm’s size from management, you might be proper that they shouldn’t be implicated, however typically they get dragged in anyway. Having further insured standing helps handle protection expense till the lender can get dismissed. The borrower might be obligated to indemnify the lender anyway, so this isn’t as misdirected as you counsel.

I’m so blissful to lastly have somebody supply an opinion. Whereas I feel it is a nice level, sadly, this opinion doesn’t supply legitimate reasoning for added insured standing. This can be a motive with out impact.

ISO’s business normal legal responsibility (CGL) coverage extends insured standing to 3 “ranges” of insureds inside the coverage language:

• Named Insureds: Granted the broadest protection
• Prolonged Insureds: Typically these pure individuals who personal and/or run the enterprise comparable to administrators, officers and LLC managers/members.
• Automated Insureds: These are mostly the individuals who really do the work of and supply the companies/merchandise of the enterprise comparable to workers and volunteers.

Past these, the coverage permits for the inclusion of “further insureds” by endorsement. Extra insureds, as acknowledged within the prior article, are these with an ongoing enterprise relationship (normally created by contract) or a symbiotic relationship with the insured.

Banks, as beforehand acknowledged, maintain neither of those relationships.

However the one that responded to and commented on the prior article talked about that regardless that banks don’t have both of those relationships, they could get pulled right into a go well with and thus ought to be further insureds.

Whereas it might be true {that a} lender could also be improperly pulled right into a go well with, this rivalry forgets one key factor of ISO’s CGL. Not solely does the CGL lengthen protection to the beforehand referenced insureds, the coverage additionally extends safety to contractual indemnitees.

Paragraph 2 in SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS – COVERAGES A AND B reads:

2. If we defend an insured in opposition to a “go well with” and an indemnitee of the insured can be named as a celebration to the “go well with”, we are going to defend that indemnitee….

Standing as an indemnitee is created by the provisions of the mortgage paperwork and the inclusion of an indemnity settlement. Extra insured standing is NOT required for the financial institution to garner protection and safety from the insurance coverage service.

If the financial institution really believes it has an publicity, such publicity ought to be managed through contractual threat switch and the indemnity provisions that requires the borrower to indemnify, defend and maintain the financial institution innocent within the occasion they’re pulled (even wrongly) right into a go well with. That is the suitable methodology for the financial institution to handle this potential.

Extra insured standing ought to be restricted to ONLY these events with an ongoing enterprise/contractual relationship with the named insured or these with a symbiotic relationship. Solely these events having such a relationship with the insured have TRUE vicarious legal responsibility for the actions of the named insured.

Insurance coverage insurance policies are NOT supposed to perform a objective that’s a lot better completed by contract and contractual threat switch. Insurance coverage is just a financing mechanism; contracts and contractual threat switch is the first supply for managing and transferring threat. The unendorsed CGL helps the correct use of contractual threat switch.

To date, nobody has provided a viable motive a financial institution ought to be granted further insured standing as a requirement for a mortgage. However I’m nonetheless all in favour of opinions.