CIC Commercial Casualty common mistakes
CIC Commercial Casualty · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the CGL occurrence trigger as if it depended on when the injury or damage was first set in motion, rather than on when the bodily injury or property damage actually occurs during the policy period.
Candidates carry over a 'cause of loss' or 'exposure' instinct from property and auto material and read the occurrence form as covering the date of the negligent act. The continuous-trigger and injury-in-fact case law makes this worse, because candidates half-remember a court decision and apply it as the policy wording.
What to do instead
Memorize the insuring agreement language: coverage applies to bodily injury or property damage that occurs during the policy period, and the occurrence need not be intended or expected. Practice with a two-policy-period fact pattern where the negligent act, the exposure, and the manifestation fall in different years, and write out which policy responds and why for each of the three triggers.
Missing that the CGL pollution exclusion is absolute for most commercial risks but leaves a narrow carve-out for hostile fire, and then either excluding all pollution losses or covering all of them.
The exclusion is long and its exception list is short, so candidates skim to the word 'pollution' and stop. Older materials describing the sudden-and-accidental exception also linger in study habits, and candidates apply that superseded standard.
What to do instead
Build a one-page grid of the pollution exclusion: what is excluded, the hostile-fire exception, and how the exception interacts with the definition of pollutants. Then run three scenarios, including a contractor tracking fuel into a storm drain and a building fire that releases fumes, and state the outcome under the current form.
Answering additional insured questions by assuming the named insured's policy automatically extends to anyone the named insured contracts with, without checking whether an endorsement was actually attached and whether the contract requires it.
The certificate of insurance looks like proof of coverage and candidates treat it as the endorsement itself. The phrase 'additional insured' is also used loosely in construction contracts, so the candidate never separates the contractual promise from the insurance mechanism.
What to do instead
Separate the three layers explicitly: the contract clause that requires additional insured status, the endorsement that actually grants it, and the certificate that only evidences it. For every practice question, first ask whether an endorsement is attached, then ask which endorsement form, then ask what it grants.
Overlooking that most additional insured endorsements for ongoing operations are limited to liability arising out of the named insured's operations or the named insured's work, and treating the additional insured as having the same breadth of coverage as the named insured.
The endorsement title sounds comprehensive and the schedule of persons is the only part candidates read. The 'arising out of' limitation sits in the body of the endorsement, and its scope is the single most litigated point in construction defect claims.
What to do instead
Read the grant-of-coverage paragraph of each additional insured endorsement separately from the schedule, and note the exact scope wording. Compare an ongoing-operations endorsement with a completed-operations endorsement side by side and list three fact patterns where the additional insured would or would not be covered.
Forgetting that additional insured status usually does not override the other insurance condition, so the additional insured's own policy may still respond first or share pro rata, and assuming the additional insured is always excess.
Candidates conflate the additional insured endorsement with the 'other insurance' condition and with the primary and noncontributory requirement that must be separately endorsed. The contract often demands primary and noncontributory, but the endorsement granting additional insured status may be silent on it.
What to do instead
Memorize that additional insured status, primary and noncontributory wording, and waiver of subrogation are three distinct coverage features each requiring its own endorsement. For each practice question, identify which of the three the contract requires and whether the policy actually provides it.
Assuming the business auto policy covers any vehicle the business uses, including hired autos and employee-owned vehicles used for business, without checking the covered auto designation symbols.
The declarations page shows a symbol number that candidates skip because it looks like administrative detail. The symbols are the actual coverage grant, and the difference between symbol 1, symbol 8, and symbol 9 changes the answer to most questions.
What to do instead
Memorize the numerical covered auto symbols and what each one designates, especially any auto, hired auto, and nonowned auto. Practice by reading a declarations page with a given symbol and listing which of five vehicles are covered before looking at the answer choices.
Treating the auto policy's care, custody, or control exclusion and the CGL's care, custody, or control exclusion as interchangeable, and applying the wrong one to a vehicle in the insured's possession for repair or storage.
Both forms contain similarly named exclusions aimed at property in the insured's charge, but the auto exclusion addresses property being transported or stored and the CGL exclusion addresses property in the insured's care. Candidates memorize the phrase and not the form.
What to do instead
Write out both exclusions verbatim on one page and annotate the different subject matter each protects. Then work a garage or valet scenario and a trucking scenario, stating which policy's exclusion applies and what coverage, if any, remains.
Forgetting that the business auto policy's physical damage coverage follows the covered auto and that a newly acquired auto has limited automatic coverage, then assuming a newly purchased vehicle is fully covered from the moment of purchase.
The newly acquired auto provision has a short automatic window and different rules for trailers and for vehicles replacing a covered auto. Candidates remember that new autos are covered and drop the conditions and time limits.
What to do instead
Memorize the newly acquired auto provision: the automatic period, the distinction between a replacement and an addition, and the reporting requirement. Then answer a question where a vehicle is purchased on a Friday and damaged the following week, and state exactly what is and is not covered.
Confusing the exclusive remedy doctrine with an absolute bar, and failing to recognize the situations where an injured worker can sue the employer outside workers compensation, such as an intentional tort or a claim outside the employment relationship.
Exclusive remedy is taught as a slogan and candidates never learn its boundaries. Questions that test the exceptions look like trick questions, so candidates pick the broad statement instead of the qualified one.
What to do instead
Learn exclusive remedy as a rule with defined exceptions: intentional acts, claims by nonemployees, and matters outside the scope of employment. Practice by classifying five fact patterns as within or outside the exclusive remedy bar and stating the reasoning in one sentence each.
Treating employers liability as a duplicate of workers compensation and missing that it responds to third-party-over and certain employee suits that the compensation benefit does not, and that it has its own limits shown separately in the declarations.
The two coverages sit on the same policy part and share a name, so candidates read them as one. The employers liability limits appear as a separate entry on the declarations page, which candidates skip when they focus on the compensation benefits.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table with three columns: what workers compensation pays, what employers liability pays, and what neither pays. Include the separate limits, the common exclusions such as intentional injury and employment practices, and one third-party-over scenario you can walk through from injury to claim.