Close this search box.

Contractual liability-Action Over


Contractual liability-Action Over

Action Over Liability Exclusions
Action-over issues are misunderstood by a lot of contractors and insurance brokers in New York. It’s a pretty confusing topic, so we’re
going to simplify it. And to do that, we’re going to give you an example. In this example there are only three parties that we need to be
aware of. The first one is the contractor who is going to be doing a job or a project. The second party to this deal is the employee who
works for the contractor and the third party to this agreement is the project owner or the property owner. Now prior to starting a job,
the owner of the property or the project is going to send the contractor a construction contract and within that contact is going an
indemnity agreement, very common. An indemnity agreement or a hold harmless agreement as we commonly call them, says something
like that the contractor promises to indemnify and hold the property owner harmless from any or all claims which may arise during the
course of construction. They’ll also ask for a certificate of insurance naming the owner and maybe other entities as additional insurance
on the contractor’s policies.

How Action Over Claims Occur
So, during the course of construction, the employee, party number two that we talked about is injured during the course of
construction. Normal work place injury, but it’s pretty serious. So the employee files a claim with the contractor’s workers
compensation insurer. The claim handles all of the medical bills and pays all the loss wages while that worker is out of work. Now half
way through this claim’s process, the employee decides that they’re also going to sue the property owner for negligence to maintain a
safe workplace. Now we don’t need to talk about whether the workplace was safe or unsafe or who had control of it or who didn’t
control of it. The simple fact is that we’ve got a multimillion dollar lawsuit that the employee has filed against the property owner. Now
the property owner is going to take that lawsuit and they’re going to tender it, or give it over, to the contractor. Under the terms of the
construction contract, we mentioned earlier, the indemnity agreement makes the contractor responsible for any or all claims which could
arise from the performance of that job and this is one of them. So the contractor takes that claim and they bring it to their insurance

Action Over Exclusions
Now here’s the rub, contractor’s insurance in the down state New York, especially in the Five Boros can get very expensive. So this
particular contractor decided that they were going to exclude action-over liability in their general liability policy and that’s a real
problem. Another way that this can happen is that an unscrupulous broker maybe competing on a contractor’s liability insurance and
bid 30-50% less. We’ve seen this happened and they don’t disclose why it was so much cheaper. The reason that it’s cheaper is because
action-over claims are excluded and unfortunately, the contractor didn’t asked enough questions and actions-over claims are going to be

However this happened, whether it was the contractor trying to save a few dollars or it was due to an unscrupulous broker, it really
doesn’t matter at this point. The contractor has a multi-million dollar lawsuit on their hands and they’ve got a contractual obligation to
indemnify for it and what are they going to do? They’re either going to try to give it back to the property owner. They don’t want it, the
property owner’s liability insurance company doesn’t want it – they’ll ultimately have to pay the claim but they’re going to subrogate
against the contractor under the terms of the contract. So what ultimately happens in many cases is that the contractor has to go
bankrupt. It’s probably not the best situation. You’ve put your entire life’s work into a business and now you have to go in to
bankruptcy because you didn’t have the right insurance coverage.

Compounding the Problem
Now what compounds this problem even further in some situations is that endorsements or exclusions in some liability policies, don’t
specifically say, “Action Over Claims Excluded” – they’re going to have different wordings and that’s going to mask the problem.
I’m going to read some of the titles of these exclusions. They can be: ‘amendment to employee injury exclusion’ or ‘amendment of
definition of employee injury’ or ‘carved back of contractual liability’ or something else like that. And like I said, that masks the real
issue. So you may not even understand that you don’t have the coverage even if you read your policy.
Look, I realize that liability insurance in the Five Boros and downstate New York is really expensive and if you’re working at height,
meaning you’re on a ladder or something, you’re a painting contractor, masonry, drywall, those sorts of trade – it gets even more
expensive and very limited availability. But the question is – do you want to have coverage for third party action over claim or not? And
I really recommend that you have it because these kinds of claims happen and they happen with regular frequency and they get very

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts


Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote