Contract insurance requirement reviews, drafted clause by clause for your account manager to check.

Your account manager opens the article or exhibit, then the forms schedule and endorsements for the general liability, auto, umbrella and workers compensation policies, and works down it one clause at a time. Whatever the policies already meet gets noted. Whatever they don't becomes a request to the carrier, or a note back to the contractor that it can't be done.

In the test, AI takes that read on copies. It lists each requirement beside what the policy pages show: required coverages, each limit named as a field (each occurrence, general aggregate, products and completed operations aggregate), the additional insured form and edition asked for, primary and noncontributory wording, waiver of subrogation, notice of cancellation, and every requirement with no matching endorsement. It tells nobody anything. Your reviewer compares the draft with what your team actually concluded.

Who signed with whom can decide it. In Gilbane, decided in March 2018, New York's Court of Appeals read an endorsement reaching anyone the named insured agreed by written contract to add as requiring a written contract between those two parties, so a construction manager with no contract of its own with the named insured was left out. The draft sets out each party the article wants protected and marks anyone who did not sign with your insured.

Owners ask by edition, and not the same one. The Judicial Council of California's courthouse program says CG 2010 11/85 or its equivalent. A University of Kentucky cancer center project wants CG 20 10 10 01 with CG 20 37 10 01, any alternate negotiated before work starts, and refuses a form limited to sole negligence or independent acts. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority names the 11 85 edition or a 04 13 pair in one section and a 07 04 pair in another. The New York City School Construction Authority names CG 20 33 with CG 20 37 in its general liability list, CG 20 10 with CG 20 37 in its additional insured paragraph, and keeps the requirement running three years past substantial completion. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey says CG 20 10 or its equivalent, unamended from the standard language. The City of Sierra Madre's posted guide calls 11 85 uncommon and shows 07 04 and later editions reaching only what the named insured caused, and Burlington, New York's 2017 decision, read that kind of wording to mean proximate cause. The draft sets the edition asked for beside the edition on the schedule and leaves "equivalent" to your account manager.

Primary, waiver and notice each have a beneficiary and a trigger. The Judicial Council wants a waiver in favor of the general contractor, the State, the Council and their elected and appointed officials, judges, officers, employees and agents, with the endorsement copy attached to the certificate, and primary and non-contributory wording that stops short of anything the OCIP covers. Marin Community College District's section wants certificates and additional insured endorsements to give thirty days' written notice of material change, cancellation or non-renewal, not cancellation alone. Those are separate things to check, and your reviewer will look for a blanket waiver that doesn't reach every named party and a notice clause that asks for more triggers than the endorsement gives.

Part of an article may not hold. Texas Insurance Code section 151.102 voids a construction contract's requirement that one party indemnify another against that other party's own negligence or fault, section 151.103 excepts bodily injury claims by the indemnitor's own employees, and section 151.104 voids an additional insured requirement to the same extent. New York's General Obligations Law 5-322.1 voids an agreement to indemnify a party for its own negligence, while leaving alone insurance contracts from admitted insurers. The draft marks the state and the clause, and says nothing about whether the clause holds. That belongs to your licensed staff and counsel, and this page is not legal advice.

The gap is often somewhere other than the additional insured page. In Structure Tone v. National Casualty, a 2015 New York appellate decision discussed in IRMI's commentary, a wrap-up exclusion on a subcontractor's policy barred additional insured coverage for the general contractor even though the sub wasn't enrolled in the wrap-up. A 2019 IRMI piece describes one reaching any project where a wrap-up ever existed. The Port Authority's manual bars wrap exclusions that apply when a sub is not enrolled, when the injury happens away from the jobsite, or after the program ends. The airports manual bars endorsements such as CG 22 94 or 22 95 that change coverage for work by subcontractors. The Kentucky project's manual treats a self-insured retention that applies to the additional insured as a breach even if no one objects. The draft reads the whole forms schedule, then lists each endorsement against the clause it touches.

If your reviewer says yes, new insurance articles run through the same job for about 30 days.

A licensed person reviews every gap list before anything goes back to the contractor or a carrier. The AI never reaches a live policy or a live certificate and never says a requirement is met.

Scoring keeps to the criteria set for the test.