The Reasons Which Trigger Liability Insurance Extensively

A claim made by an additional insured may qualify for coverage under an “arising out of” endorsement of liability insurance. However, liability insurance policies that have a “caused by” trigger language will only pay for liabilities arising from the named insured’s acts or omissions. Causation trigger language makes a subtle difference in general liability claim coverage. Read on to learn more. Here are some examples of policies that have causation trigger language.

Claims-made policies

In addition to general liability insurance, claims-made policies trigger other types of liability coverage. Professional liability insurance covers professionals in the financial services industry, and this branch of the insurance industry evolved into two separate forms. Directors’ and officers’ liability coverages and employment practices liability coverages are two common forms of claims-made insurance. These two types of insurance policies are often combined, and if you’re unsure which type is right for your organization, consider consulting with an expert in this field.

The concept of claims-made policies is simple: they indemnify you for the first claims you make during the policy’s term. In the original language, claims-made policies were called “pure claims made” policies, and their provisions were similar. However, this form of insurance had some drawbacks. For example, in some states, “claims-made” coverage applies only to claims made after the policy’s effective date.

Excess liability policies

Unlike primary insurance, excess liability policies typically do not trigger limits. This is due to the fact that the primary insurer’s obligation to defend the policyholder does not extend beyond the policy benefit limits. Some excess liability policies include defense benefits, while others do not. However, the majority of policies provide some level of right or option to defend the policyholder. In such a case, the excess insurer will not be required to defend the policyholder but will reimburse the insured if the liability is caused by an event covered by the policy.

A key issue arising in cases involving excess insurance is whether the policy is triggered by a large liability loss. In other words, if you have a high liability loss, you can submit it to a high-level excess insurer without a vetting process. In many cases, the insured will be the only one protected by the excess insurer. Therefore, you will have to contribute your own funds to the excess carrier, but it is worth it if you want to be protected.

Causation-trigger theory

The extended period of coverage offered by an extensive liability insurance policy may be the deciding factor in determining whether a particular claim can be covered under an insurance policy. This timeframe may vary, depending on the type of coverage and policy language. For example, if a homeowner’s policy provides coverage for damages that occur prior to the property owner’s negligence, it may be argued that an insurance company is still liable for the damages when the homeowner is negligent. Nonetheless, a common practice is for an insurance company to pay for the damages immediately following a claim, not until the damage has been sustained.

The most common and simplest theory of insurance coverage is the Causation-Trigger Theory. The theory states that the coverage is triggered when exposure occurs and an injury manifests itself. This theory allows for multiple insurance policies to be triggered by one event. This theory is the most common and is often the one used when determining whether a property owner should carry extensive liability insurance. The theory can be applied to both types of policies.

Duty to settle a reasonably clear claim

The duty to settle a reasonably clear claim stems from the general duty to act in good faith and fair dealing. Courts have used the term “bad faith” to describe a breach of this duty, but this does not necessarily mean that the insurer intended to do anything improper. Instead, the ultimate test is whether the insurer’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. If a policy limits the insurer’s liability insurance, the duty to settle a reasonably clear claim can apply to it.

In some cases, the duty to settle is triggered by the plaintiff’s request for settlement. This requirement arises when the liability is “reasonably clear” or if the plaintiff’s damages exceed the policy limits. The duty to settle is not contingent on the carrier’s offer, but rather arises when the carrier initiates settlement negotiations on its own. In these cases, the duty to settle can result in a significant financial loss for the insurer, which may be a major factor in the decision to settle.

Continuous trigger theory

The Continuous Trigger Theory of liability insurance applies when an insurer is sued for a construction defect. The theory holds that coverage begins when damage or injury is discovered. While the actual discovery of damage is a matter of fact, courts may disagree about whether it should have been discovered sooner or later. For instance, let’s say that an HVAC company in Texas completed work in 2010. In November 2017, the claimant discovered a leak and tendered the claim to the 2010 and 2017 CGL carriers.

The concept of the continuous trigger was originally developed by the courts. It explains how the insurer’s policy responds to injury claims, based on the date the injury “occurs.” It is generally agreed that the insurance policy in effect when the injury occurs pays for the loss or defense of the injured party. In cases where the injury occurred over an extended period of time, the continuous trigger theory is applicable. The theory also applies to pollution claims.