You Must Pass ALL Exclusion Tests

       A popular phrase that I use in class---‘you read a GL like an all-risk property policy; everything is covered unless it is excluded’. Got an e-mail the other day because a restaurant with valet parking had damaged a customer’s car. The restaurant does not have GKLL (or GK Direct Primary). The GL carrier denied the loss on behalf of the restaurant.

         The agent brought up the exception to the auto/aircraft/watercraft exclusion of GL (exclusion ‘g’—I call it the “go exclusion”)—g (3)—

This exclusion does not apply to:

(3)     Parking of an “auto” on, or on the ways next to, premises you own or rent,                             provided the “auto” is not owned by or rented or loaned to your or the insured;

         There is actually quite a bit of “auto type” coverage under a CGL if it involves premises and if the auto is not owned, etc., by the insured. We will hold that debate to another day. However, the big deal here is liability’s favorite exclusion “care, custody or control”. What this exclusion might “give” c,c,c takes away (at least in this case) relative to the vehicle itself. They should have had GKLL (and hope that the insured would be deemed negligent which in this case appeared to be true).

         The agent thought that GKLL could only be added to a Garage Policy. While it is true that GKLL can be included on a GAP it also can be written by itself as an endorsement to a BAP. The endorsement is CA 99 33.

         It is not uncommon that what the GL “gives” in one area might be partially taken away (especially in the property damage area) somewhere else.