APA Commercial General common mistakes
APA Commercial General · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the CGL occurrence trigger as the date the damage was discovered or the claim was filed, rather than the date bodily injury or property damage first occurred or began.
Candidates carry over claims-made thinking from professional liability and assume the reporting date drives coverage; the CGL policy's occurrence form is injury-in-fact triggered, and the 'occurrence' definition hinges on an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.
What to do instead
Before answering any trigger question, write down the injury-in-fact date, then test it against the policy period and any prior-and-pending or known-loss provisions. Practise with progressive-damage scenarios (leaking roof over several policy years) and identify which year's occurrence limit responds and how the 'batch' of exposure is treated as one occurrence.
Applying the 'your work' exclusion to bar all coverage for a contractor's defective workmanship, instead of distinguishing damage to the work itself from resulting damage to other property.
The exclusion's structure (damage to 'your work' and to 'that particular part' of it) is dense, and candidates flatten it into a blanket bar, missing that damage to other property caused by the defective work is typically covered and that the subcontractor exception can restore coverage.
What to do instead
Build a two-column table: what is 'your work' versus other property, and what is 'that particular part' versus the rest. Work through three fact patterns (defective window installation damaging interior finishes; faulty rebar causing a balcony collapse; a subcontractor's defective work incorporated into the project) and state which exclusion limb applies and whether an exception reopens coverage.
Reading the additional insured endorsement as granting the same breadth of coverage as the named insured, without checking the endorsement's specific wording, limits, and any 'subject to the same terms' or 'sole negligence' qualifiers.
Candidates assume additional insured status equals full named-insured status; in reality the endorsement may be limited to liability arising out of the named insured's operations, may exclude the additional insured's own negligence, and may carry its own aggregate or sublimit.
What to do instead
For every additional insured question, quote the endorsement's grant clause, its exclusions, and its limits before answering. Compare an ISO-style 'arising out of your operations' endorsement with a broader 'negligence of the named insured' version, and identify who is an insured for what and up to which limit.
Confusing the general aggregate, the products-completed operations aggregate, and the per-occurrence limit, and misapplying which payments erode which aggregate.
The declarations page presents several limits with similar names, and candidates do not track that the general aggregate applies to most losses except products-completed operations, which has its own aggregate, and that defense costs are paid inside the limits unless the policy says otherwise.
What to do instead
Draw the limit structure on scratch paper: each occurrence, general aggregate, products-completed operations aggregate, personal and advertising injury, damage to premises rented, and medical payments. Then run a sequence of three claims and mark which bucket each payment draws from, including defense costs, until the arithmetic is automatic.
Overlooking the 'your product' and 'your work' exclusions when analysing a products liability claim, and missing the impaired-property exception and the recall/sistership provisions.
Candidates focus on the products-completed operations hazard and the aggregate and forget that the 'your product' exclusion bars damage to the product itself, while the exception preserves coverage for damage to other property; recall and withdrawal costs are separately excluded.
What to do instead
Memorise the exclusion's two limbs and its exception as a formula: damage to your product is out, damage to other property arising out of it is in, and costs to recall or withdraw are out. Test the formula on a contaminated-ingredient scenario and a component-part scenario, stating exactly what is and is not covered.
Treating the employer's liability exclusion as absolute, ignoring the exception for liability assumed under an insured contract and the separate treatment of injured employees of subcontractors.
The exclusion is written with carve-backs, and candidates read only the headline bar on injury to employees; they then miss that an insured contract can restore coverage and that employees of independent contractors are not the insured's employees for this exclusion.
What to do instead
Annotate the exclusion with its exceptions in the margin of your notes and practise a scenario where a general contractor is sued by a subcontractor's injured worker. Decide coverage under the employer's liability exclusion, the insured-contract exception, and any contractual liability endorsement, and explain each step.
Assuming the contractual liability coverage extends to every contract the insured signs, rather than only to liability assumed in an 'insured contract' as defined, with the tort liability carve-out and the defense-of-contractual-assumption qualifier.
Candidates see 'contractual liability' in the coverage grant and skip the definitional limits; they miss that the definition covers specified categories such as leases of premises, sidetrack agreements, and easement agreements, and that the indemnity must be for tort liability of another.
What to do instead
Write out the definition of 'insured contract' category by category and test each against a sample clause (a lease indemnity, a construction hold-harmless, a railroad sidetrack agreement). Note which are covered automatically and which require an endorsement, and check whether the contract assumes liability for the insured's own negligence.
Misapplying the pollution exclusion to a routine commercial exposure such as fumes, smoke, or off-gassing from a product or operation, and failing to check whether an exception or buy-back restores coverage.
The absolute pollution exclusion is broad and its exceptions are narrow and technical; candidates either ignore it or apply it without reading the exceptions for hostile fire, building heating equipment, and products or completed operations in some forms.
What to do instead
Read the exclusion's exception list line by line and make a checklist of what survives. Then work a scenario such as fumes from a roofing operation entering a neighbouring building and a scenario involving a product that emits vapours, and state whether the exclusion bars coverage and which exception, if any, applies.
Ignoring the duties-after-loss conditions, particularly the obligation to notify promptly and to cooperate, and assuming late notice never affects coverage.
Candidates treat conditions as boilerplate and focus only on exclusions; in practice late notice, failure to cooperate, or voluntary payment can prejudice coverage, and the prompt-notice condition interacts with prejudice rules that vary by jurisdiction.
What to do instead
Make a one-page checklist of the duties after loss (notice, cooperation, proof of loss, no voluntary payments) and practise a late-notice fact pattern where the insurer alleges prejudice. State the condition, the insured's breach, and the likely coverage outcome, noting that the answer may turn on whether the insurer was prejudiced.
Skipping the definitions section and answering from the coverage grant alone, so terms like 'occurrence', 'property damage', 'personal and advertising injury', and 'insured contract' are used loosely.
The definitions control the scope of every grant and exclusion, and candidates under time pressure read the insuring agreement and jump to an answer, missing that a claim fails or succeeds on a defined term such as 'advertising injury' requiring an offence in the course of advertising.
What to do instead
Before each practice question, locate the operative defined term in the policy and quote it in your reasoning. Drill the definitions of 'occurrence', 'property damage', 'personal and advertising injury', 'your product', 'your work', and 'insured contract' until you can state each from memory and apply it to a fresh fact pattern.