Educational Track - University CE Webinar Information

Untitled Document
  Upcoming University Webinar - Qualifies For CE in States Listed Below

CE Webinar

Instructor Bio


Date: September 4th, 2014
Topic: Earthquake and DIC


Time: 9:00am-11:00am PT /10am-12pm MT/11am-1pm CT/12pm - 2pm ET

Approved in:

CE Approved States CA, WA

ALL Webinars can be attended for educational purposes in all states



CE Webinar

Instructor Bio


Date: September 9th, 2014
Topic: Integrated Disability Management

Diana Henderson, ARM, CPDM, WCCP. WCCA

Time: 9:00am-11:00am PT /10am-12pm MT/11am-1pm CT/12pm - 2pm ET
States Approved in:

CE Approved States CA, FL, IA, ID, LA, MA, NE, NV, NY, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA, WY
ALL Webinars can be attended for educational purposes in all states



Non-Members of the University can Register for CE for $60 for classes with 2CE.

Our Article In The Insurance Journal

Questions & Answers

Insurance Questions & Answers
Ask Insurance Questions and get answers from real insurance industry professionals
Newest Question

Question 1 - I have an optometrist who bought an existing optometry practice and we insured him on a BOP.  He had to sign a new lease with the landlord and there were TIB’s which were completed by the prior owner.  I was always under the impression that these TIB’s are now part of the existing building since they were there when my client signed the new lease agreement.  My thought being if the prior owner had moved out, the TIB’s would have been there and the landlord would have to increase his building coverage (assuming landlord wanted those TIB’s to be replaced) to cover those items.  Also, with the TIB’s already being in place, my client did not make any “improvements or betterments” to the premises.

A fellow agent was saying that those TIB’s are the responsibility of my client as it is part of his office.

I have read through the lease agreement and was only able to find insurance requirements that refer to any TIB’s installed by the tenant.  Since my client did not install any of these TIB’s, it gave me further understanding that this was the landlord’s responsibility.

Am I missing something?


Answer by Laurie Infantino AFIS, CISC, CIC, CRIS, ACSR, CISR
President of Insurance Community Center

Here is the simple answer without looking at the lease.

1) The lease will be where it will indicate if the tenant has to insure the TIB’s whether or not they installed them OR if they were installed by a prior tenant.

2) If the lease is clear that the tenant is only responsible for TIB’s that they installed then that is what they would insure.

3) In that case the TIB’s that were installed by the prior tenant, as they are permanent additions, would be insured by the building owner under building and the building owner would increase the amount of the building amount accordingly.

4) Even if the lease requires that the prior TIB’s be insured by the new tenant (your insured) it is very difficult to insure them on the tenant’s form because they did not pay for the installations or “acquire” them.

Again, it all rests on what the lease requires the tenant to do in terms of insure them and/or repair them in the case of a loss.

Question 2 - Our Insured is a manufacturer of truck bodies. The Insured's driver, while operating a customer's vehicle, hit a parked car on a public street. The damage to the customer's vehicle was minimal and was taken care of by the Insured. Had the damage been major, the Garagekeepers coverage would have responded to the damage to the customer's vehicle. The issue is with the Property Damage to the third party's vehicle. Because the insured was operating a customer's vehicle, this is technically a non-owned auto and the claims adjuster is pointing to the other insurance condition under the auto policy, stating that the customer's insurance should be primary (in absence of a contract). It has always been our assumption that because we had symbol 1 on the policy, that the liability for the operation of customer's vehicle would be covered as primary. We never intended that a customer would be responsible for the Insured's operation of their vehicles. If you look at the scenario that you take your vehicle to a dealer or auto service shop. If in the course of test driving your vehicle, the dealer or auto service shop's employee has a collision with another vehicle and does property damage, or even worse, causes a bodily injury, using the coverage forms we have on our policy, you would be held primarily liable for the property damage and bodily injury to that third party. This can't be right. How do we amend our policy to cover, on a primary basis, the third party liability while the insured is using a customer's vehicle? Can we alter or delete the "Other Insurance Condition"? Can we add a symbol 10, described as "customers vehicles, while being used by or in the Insured's care, custody and control on a primary basis.

Answer by Marjorie Segale, AFIS, CISC, CIC, RPLU, CRIS, ACSR, CISR

Unfortunately, none of the Symbols, including Symbol 1, have any impact on the Other Insurance Clause. The language from that section is:

5. Other Insurance

a. For any covered "auto" you own, this cov­erage form provides primary insurance. For any covered "auto" you don't own, the in­surance provided by this coverage form is excess over any other collectible insur­ance. However, while a covered "auto" which is a "trailer" is connected to another vehicle, the Liability Coverage this coverage form pro­vides for the "trailer" is.

(1) Excess while it is connected to a motor vehicle you do not own.

(2) Primary while it is connected to a covered "auto" you own.

b. For Hired Auto Physical Damage Coverage, any covered "auto" you lease, hire, rent or borrow is deemed to be a covered "auto" you own. However, any "auto" that is leased, hired, rented or borrowed with a driver is not a covered "auto."

c. Regardless of the provisions of Paragraph a. above, this coverage form's Liability Coverage is promary for any liability assumed under an insured contract."

The rationale behind this is the old saying “insurance follows the car” and your insured’s employee is a permissive driver of the customer’s car, thus invoking the customer’s insurance as primary.  To many of us and certainly to your insured and their customer, this makes no sense in the context of a business that involves driving a customer’s vehicle.  So, whether or not it makes any sense, what can be done to correct this?  Unfortunately, there is no standard endorsement by which to do this, so it becomes a very subjective decision and based upon the insurance company’s willingness to make a change to the coverage.  I think that the easiest way to fix this is to add a “primary-non-contributory” endorsement to the policy that would have to apply to “Your customers’ vehicles while in your care, custody or control”.  Many carriers have published their own endorsement for primary wording but some combine it with Additional Insured wording on the Auto form which is not likely to make your underwriter happy.  If that doesn’t work, you could go the route of Symbol 10 – the problem is in order to get the Other Insurance condition to work correctly, you would have to treat the customer vehicle as an Owned Auto and that means substantial premium involved, even if the underwriter would be willing.

This has been a mixed bag of bad and good, but I hope that this lends clarity.  Please let us know what happens.

More Questions and Answers are on the Homepage of the Insurance Community Center
To see more Questions & Answers, click here
Ask Your Question Now, Click Here

Whats New In Your Community This Week

What's New In Your Community - Insurance Community Center

What's New In Your Community?

March Madness and Insurance
March 17th, 2014

Have your co-workers view the Community so they can receive these valuable newsletters. Our professional network becomes more powerful with each
new person we reach.

Newsletter Content for March 17th, 2013
  • Covered Not Covered - Facebook Snooping on Job Candidates May Backfire for Employers
  • Covered Not Covered - Happy Meal "toy" was heroin sold at McDonald's drive-thorugh
  • Covered Not Covered - Pet Dog Takes the Rap for Fire that Displaces Arizona Family
  • Upcoming University Webinars - Crop & Brokers Fees
  • Insurance Q & A - Certificates and FRAUD
  • What's New in the University - Professional Liability Checklist Comming soon!
  • Insurance Journal - Insurance Academy Appointment for Laurie Infantino
  • Assessment Forge - Assess your Customers OR Prospects Risk using Assessment Forge
  • What's New in the University - 2014 Webinar list by category and alphabetically

    Share your own tips and claims with community members. If there is something you would like to appear on the community or in these newsletters send your thoughts to:
Covered Not Covered - Facebook Snooping on Job Candidates May Backfire for Employers

Before you even meet the perspective employee for an interview, you are sued for discrimination or invasion of privacy.

It has become standard practice for potential employers to use social media and the internet to check out the candidates for a job opening even before you meet them. Whether it is Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram or even “googling” someone…it is common practice!

While this may be considered routine hiring practices, it also is being alleged to be both an “invasion of privacy” and “discrimination.” The article states: “Although job applicants would not necessarily know if their social media profiles had been screened, they have several ways of finding out. For instance, an applicant might be tipped off after receiving a suspicious friend request or by talking with current employees and hiring managers who disclose the information…either accidentally or on purpose…in the course of the interview.” Clearly the worst of these methods is to have a staff member send out a “friend” request to the unknown potential employee so they can get all sorts of background information. But this happens!

The Americans with Disabilities Act and other antidiscrimination laws prohibit employers from making hiring decisions on the basis of certain protected characteristics, such as applicant’s race, ethnicity, religion, gender or disability status. Those details are often present on an individuals’ social media profile giving potential employers access to information that would not be available to them otherwise. Whether or not any of this was actually used for acceptance or denial of the applicant, the applicant could view the information as such.

There are two issues of concern, as relates insurance: the discrimination and the invasion of privacy, both of which would be potentially covered differently by insurance policies. In a nutshell, an employer can get sued by a potential applicant for failure to hire them because the applicant is a member of a protected class under any discrimination law, both state or federal, OR the employer engaged in a form of invasion of privacy.


Commercial General Liability:

While some insurance forms may include discrimination in their definition under personal injury coverage; that definition has to be looked at in context, specifically exclusions. Under the standard type of general liability policy coverage is not provided for discrimination suits. Nor does the CGL include coverage for this type of invasion of privacy suit.

Company Specific General Liability Forms:

On company specific general liability forms, there are a few forms that we have seen that include discrimination as an added coverage.
CAUTION: Read the form carefully.................................................

Written By:
Laurie Infantino AFIS, CISC, CIC, CRIS, ACSR, CISR
President, Insurance Community Center

V.P. & Director of Education, Insurance Community University

Click Here to read the rest of the article

Covered Not Covered - “Happy Meal “toy” was heroin sold at McDonald’s drive –through”

Just when you thought the news could not get more bizarre, the “happy meal” becomes a “misery meal” when heroin was sold at a Pittsburgh drive-through. Here’s how the operation worked:
1. A customer who wanted to buy heroin would go to the drive-through speaker and say, “I’d like to order a toy.”
2. The customer would then stop at the first window, pay and get a Happy Meal box containing heroin in small bags.
It was not clear from the reports on this story whether this case is related to the arrest earlier that month of another McDonald’s worker accused of selling heroin in the restaurant parking lot in Murrysville, PA.
This story is beyond shocking and brings up several important considerations relating to risk management and potential liability on the part of McDonalds Corporation or the franchisee, not to mention the potential damage to McDonalds reputation and loss of revenue as a result of this type of bad press.
Potential Liability:
To our knowledge there have been no law suits brought against McDonalds for any bodily injury or other claim—it is unlikely that the individual that illegally bought heroin at the restaurant would sue McDonalds but stranger things have happened. If a suit is brought forth, it would be brought against both the franchisee and franchisor. As we think about this “crazy possibility” under the CGL, the first thought you might have is that it would clearly be excluded under the “intentional act” exclusion. In fact, the intentional act exclusion would NOT exclude coverage because this was not an intentional act on either the part of the franchisee or franchisor. It is only an “intentional” act for the drug dealer which in this case appears to be a McDonald’s employee. If a legitimate claim was made by an individual not involved in the crime, there would be potential defense under both the franchisee and franchisor’s policy. For example, if a customer bought a happy meal for their child and mistakenly got the “misery meal” instead and the child was injured, coverage would apply. While this seems SO farfetched…..truth is, stranger things have happened.
An important conversation revolves around the media attention to this incident and the allegation that the McDonalds franchisee was not diligent in hiring and monitoring employees’ activities. After all, there was at least one employee who had heroin at McDonalds and put it in Happy Meals containers. Where was the oversight? Where was the manager of McDonalds when this was going on? What about the other employees at the site….

Written By:
Laurie Infantino AFIS, CISC, CIC, CRIS, ACSR, CISR
President, Insurance Community Center

V.P. & Director of Education, Insurance Community University

Click Here to read the rest of the article

Covered Not Covered - Pet Dog Takes the Rap for Fire that Displaces Arizona Family

Lessons from the WEIRD News

This news story is about “man’s best friend,” only this time the pet dog set the apartment unit on fire.
A fire that severely damaged an apartment Tuesday, December 3rd in Tucson, Arizona was blamed on the family dog while his masters were away. “Fire Capt. Barrett Baker told KVOA that the dog ignited a burner with his paw while trying to jump up on the kitchen counter. Investigators said there were flammable materials on top of the stove, which the family said, they rarely used. The apartment was badly damaged, and the family of three who lived there was temporarily homeless. Just last October in Washington, a black Labrador was blamed for starting a fire with his paw while reaching for a bag of dog food that had been left on the stove top. In that case, firefighters gave the dog mouth-to-snout resuscitation after rescuing him.”
There are a lot of interesting insurance issues relating to this story. The question would be whether the insured had any coverage for the apartment they rent in the first place. It is surprising how many people who rent apartments do not carry the coverage even though their lease may require insurance. If they did, the ISO form would contain a Contents Broad Form (HO 00 04 05 11) and, of course, insurance companies have many versions of coverage for the tenant.
Some of the questions we have to answer are:
1. Is there coverage for a dog starting a fire? If yes,
2. Would there be coverage for damage to the tenant’s own contents?
3. Would there be coverage for the renters to reimburse them for expenses to move out and live elsewhere while the apartment unit is being repaired?
4. Would there be coverage for the damage to the apartment unit they do not own but occupy?
5. Would there be coverage for any damage, such as smoke damage, that was done in other units in the apartment complex?

Answers to Questions:

1. Is there coverage for a dog starting a fire and causing damage?
Let’s start by saying that the peril of “fire” is covered and smoke damage as a result of a fire is covered.
Here is the part of the story, however, that gets interesting. The fire was a result of an animal owned by the insured. You might be thinking at this point that there is some sort of “animal exclusion” in the Homeowners Policy; and there is. But, that exclusion would not apply to this situation. The animal exclusion only applies to the dwelling and other structures on the Homeowners 0003 Special Form. It is an exclusion found in the form because it is open perils. Note: the ISO form for a tenant is a Broad Form (HO 00 04) covering only Personal Property and Loss of Use. This is very important as to whether this claim is covered. The Broad Forms lists the perils covered and “fire” is the first one on the list. If the tenant purchased a broader form that covers the personal property on a Special Form; coverage may very well NOT be in place on what is supposed to be a more comprehensive coverage.
Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures
1. We do not insure, however, for loss:
(6) Any of the following:
rr(i)Animals owned or kept by an "insured".

The answer to this question also has to be reviewed on a state to state basis in terms of the laws covering if it is an absolute fire state..................................

Written By:
Laurie Infantino AFIS, CISC, CIC, CRIS, ACSR, CISR
President, Insurance Community Center

V.P. & Director of Education, Insurance Community University

Click Here to read the rest of the article

Insurance Q & A - Question and Answer (Certificates and FRAUD)
The “Scariest Question” presented this quarter for the Insurance Community/University

Question 1 - Is your ex-client, that you Non-Renewed, issuing fraudulent Certificates of Insurance on their cancelled insurance company and signing your signature????
That’s what’s just happened to this agency in California!

Question from Agency:
I have an insured that I just found out yesterday has been using our name and issuing certificates for policies that we no longer have anymore. This is a CA insured. I have notified the insurance companies immediately and have documented everything. What is my legal obligation now? I have tried calling the CA Department of Insurance – Investigation Unit. I have also placed a phone call in for the insured’s license. I am not sure if there is anything else I need to do. I have now received two phone calls in the last two days from different certificate holders verifying coverage. A phone call from the certificate holder to verify the insurance was what brought all of this to light. They emailed me the certificates of insurance and endorsements that were sent and we quickly realized that fraud had been committed. Thank you for any direction you can point me to!

Below are the answers from our experts from the Insurance Community Center in the order they were communicated to the agency.

Answer by Laurie Infantino AFIS, CISC, CIC, CRIS, ACSR, CISR
President of Insurance Community Center

After 40 years in the business you have just stunned me and I, personally, have not had this happen with any of the clients I have worked on; however, some of our other instructors may have. Now that you have been put on notice of the fraud you must document everything that has transpired and everything going forward. You have to react immediately to notify all the appropriate parties. I have sent this question off to our other three experts and faculty members…let’s see if they have encountered this before and can give you some direction.

Answer by Al Parizo AFIS

I suggest:
1) Notify the DOI in writing, certified mail.
2) Notify your local D.A. fraud unit.
3) Put your E&O carrier on notice with copies of above notifications. (You've done nothing wrong but this is to protect your rights if they have to defend you).
4) Refer callers to DOI and D.A (provide their phone numbers).
5) Notify your insurance companies. (Which you have done)
6) Consult with your legal counsel. It is critical to get them involved for any cease and desist notices and actionable damages.
7) Take these steps immediately if not sooner!

Answer by Marjorie L. Segale AFIS, CISC, RPLU, CIC, CRIS, ACSR, CISR
Director of Education, Insurance Community Center / Insurance University

I will bet this is a contractor. Have heard of this many times. But, there are still some things that you will need to do:

• Immediately retain an attorney, even if for now, it is record only. Have this attorney advise you whether you should immediately send notice to the certificate holders of whom you are aware. Your attorney can also advise you of the legal steps you should take, such notification of the police – fraud division or FBI if the COI was sent out of state OR electronically. The attorney may also be able to tell you the path to take to try and force disclosure of all fraudulent documents to discover the rest of the recipients.
• Put the Department of Insurance on written notice
• If this is, in fact, a contractor that did this, the tail of construction defect is 10 years from date of substantial completion and you might not find out about a fraudulent COI for many years. Because of this, I believe that you should notify your E & O carrier as a matter of record.

I am so sorry that this has happened. I hope that your agency goes after this former client. Too many people get away with fraud.

Reply from Agent:

Thank you for the valued information from all of you. After the emotions of shock and anger I am at the next stage of documenting, documenting, and documenting! The classes are paying off!!!

Answer by Casey Roberts, CIC, AFIS, ACSR
Laurus Insurance Consulting

Sorry to be so late in chiming in on this topic, but I believe Al and Marjorie have quite adequately answered your inquiry.

I will only add that when I was the Commercial sales manager for a retail agency in Northern California we had a contractor who no longer had any coverage through our agency who was issuing false certificates of insurance. He was essentially issuing them on his own behalf!

We did contact our local district attorney as well as the California DOI. The bad actor in this case almost immediately ceased this illegal activity. Alas, we never heard any more from either the D.A. or the DOI as to any further follow-up on their part.

In summary, the following steps should be taken as soon as possible in cases of issuance of fraudulent Certificates of Insurance:

* Notify the DOI on written notice, certified mail.
* Notify your local D.A. fraud unit.
* Put your E&O carrier on notice with copies of above notifications.
* Refer callers to DOI and D.A (provide their phone numbers).
* Notify your insurance companies.
* Immediately retain an attorney

More Questions and Answers are on the Homepage of the Insurance Community Center

Insurance Academy Appointment
I am pleased to let everyone at the Community/University know of my recent appointment as the Director of Education for the Insurance Journal Academy. It is our goal to seek out the best education available for all of our members and participants. The Academy offers one hour classes on hard hitting insurance topics and other courses to that provide professional resources. The classes do not qualify for CE and are not part of the University membership. Click Here to read the article.
Assess your Customers OR Prospects Risk using Assessment Forge
The Insurance University is always trying to find resources to help all the insurance professionals to provide better service to their customer base and more appropriately assess their risks. Assessment Forge is an innovative organization that provides important assessment tools.
Assessment Forge is a provider of innovative technology enabled services that intelligently scale expert judgement resulting in improved risk management processes and smarter decisions for your policyholders. Cloud based, Assessment Forge's technology offers a cost effective, secure and quick way for insurance providers to design, build and deploy automated risk assessments. Assessment Forge offers interactive market-ready assessments on common topics such as transportation safety, data privacy, abuse prevention for youth serving organizations, and more.

Click Here for More Information
What's New in the University
The Insurance University is adding a checklist for Professional Liability to our current resources. The checklist will assist with identifying exposures and insurance solutions for the broad topic of Professional Liability. The University will be offering a NEW class on Professional liability on October 21st.
Click Here for Sample of the Checklist
We are offering 75 Approved Webinar Classes - 23 of which are NEW!

- Commercial Tracks (33 Classes)
- Personal Track (10 Classes)
- Emp Benefit Track (5 Classes)
- Construction Track (6 Classes)
- Agriculture Track (10 Classes)

And Classes for all Tracks
Best Pratices of Customer Service
Broker's Fees
Ethics, Privacy and Compliance (New)
Certificates of Insurance
E & O Ten Most Common Errors (New)

Check out all the Tracks -

Book at the CE Webinar Calendar -

Join Our Mailing List

2014 Webinar Calendar

Educational Categories of Training

QuizFlash Of The Week

Course Descriptions


CIGU Webinar Discount

Your Experts

Laurie Zangwill Infantino


Marjorie Segale


Advertisement: Link2Exchange

Advertisement: Rainmaker Advisory

Advertisement: Agencies Online

Life Insurance Sales Opprotunities

Copyright 2014 by Insurance Community Center