instruction
stringlengths 37
465
| input
stringlengths 0
1.95k
| output
stringlengths 405
2.53k
| citation
listlengths 1
3
⌀ | link_validation
listlengths 0
3
| final_status
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a multi-state restaurant group operating in Oregon.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 09120, and gross sales rating basis, and Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the multi-state restaurant group in Oregon because assembly occupancies layered with full-service kitchens, valet stands, patios, and mobile catering crews raise life-safety exposures while Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces grease-laden vapors, wet tile floors, and valet fender-bender allegations along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect NFPA 101 life-safety inspections, ServSafe training rosters, and contracted fire watch logs. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 09120 on a gross sales basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures gross sales accommodate alcohol receipts and catering vans. Disposition: Preferred when annual NFPA 101 audits document every life-safety correction; otherwise apply a +0.25 LCM if third-party security is not contracted. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella when assemblies stay below 500 occupants and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a medical device distributor operating in Louisiana.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 45650, and gross sales rating basis, and Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend.
|
I scope Products Liability for the medical device distributor in Louisiana because electrical assemblies paired with warehouses implantable devices, supports surgeons, and arranges demos invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces failed sterilization, mislabeling, and inadequate instructions for use along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, HALT/HASS testing logs, and firmware version control repositories. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 45650 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales reflect consigned hospital inventory and drop shipments. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a mobile food truck fleet operating in Virginia.
|
Cover technician vetting, documentation, risk transfer for subs, limits, pricing levers, ISO class code 09130, and gross sales rating basis, and Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the mobile food truck fleet in Virginia because in-home services tied to operates propane-fired trucks at festivals, breweries, and corporate campuses raise negligent workmanship and property damage allegations while Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage. Exposure identification: Technicians track water, chemicals, or tools into client spaces, creating slip and property hazards. The operation faces crowd exposures near hot equipment, generator fires, and slip hazards from hoses along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect driver MVR monitoring, background checks and ID badges, and propane leak checks. Without signed work orders, disputes devolve into he-said-she-said and frequency climbs. Severity view: Severity arises when sensitive equipment or medical spaces shut down due to contamination. Frequency view: Frequency ties to visit volume and subcontract reliance; more night crews mean more miscues. Rating: ISO class code 09130 on a gross sales basis. Trend losses per 1,000 service calls and align ISO pricing with the submitted gross sales basis. This ensures gross sales include event guarantees and commissary rentals. Disposition: Accept with audit triggers and allow a -4% credit when customer surveys show zero unresolved claims while onboarding tech upgrades. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella for nationwide service contracts and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury defends against invasion of privacy or libel allegations from onsite staff. If crews capture before-and-after photos, disputes fade; if not, every damaged item becomes the contractor's problem. Teaching note: Coach juniors to demand workflow screenshots because they evidence both controls and actual exposure counts. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate completed operations for a commercial solar installer operating in Michigan.
|
Cover commissioning evidence, warranty management, risk transfer, limits, pricing of run-off exposure, ISO class code 92478, and payroll rating basis, and Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation.
|
I scope Completed Operations for the commercial solar installer in Michigan because complex building systems tied to designs and installs rooftop and ground-mount PV systems with crane picks cause latent water intrusions where Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation. Exposure identification: Improper flashing, HVAC condensate, or plumbing joints lead to mold and BI claims months after completion. The operation faces roof penetrations, energized testing, and completed operations fire allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect NFPA 70 (NEC) compliance logs, subcontractor certificates of insurance, and fall protection training. Without commissioning packets, plaintiffs claim negligent installation and insurers pay to open walls. Severity view: Severity mounts because water damage implicates mold, tenant displacement, and reputational loss. Frequency view: Frequency mirrors project volume and the mix of multifamily vs. commercial shells. Rating: ISO class code 92478 on a payroll basis. Align payroll and subcontract values with ISO class code 92478 and trend completed ops claims per project. This ensures payroll basis differentiates field crews from clerical staff. Disposition: Preferred when commissioning packets and photo logs are archived per project; otherwise release a -5% credit when warranty databases track every callback. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella for light commercial build-outs and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate equal to at least twice the largest contract. If QC photos exist for every concealed joint, disputes resolve quickly; if not, experts default against the installer. Teaching note: Teach developing underwriters to ask for commissioning packages—it is the quickest proxy for future severity. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate completed operations for a HVAC mechanical contractor operating in Michigan.
|
Cover commissioning evidence, warranty management, risk transfer, limits, pricing of run-off exposure, ISO class code 91580, and payroll rating basis, and Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation.
|
I scope Completed Operations for the HVAC mechanical contractor in Michigan because complex building systems tied to design-build HVAC projects, crane lifts, and ongoing maintenance agreements cause latent water intrusions where Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation. Exposure identification: Improper flashing, HVAC condensate, or plumbing joints lead to mold and BI claims months after completion. The operation faces hot work near combustibles, condensate leaks, and completed operations mold claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect lockout/tagout procedures, photos of concealed work, and warranty tracking systems. Without commissioning packets, plaintiffs claim negligent installation and insurers pay to open walls. Severity view: Severity mounts because water damage implicates mold, tenant displacement, and reputational loss. Frequency view: Frequency mirrors project volume and the mix of multifamily vs. commercial shells. Rating: ISO class code 91580 on a payroll basis. Align payroll and subcontract values with ISO class code 91580 and trend completed ops claims per project. This ensures payroll captures sheet-metal fabrication and service crews. Disposition: Preferred when commissioning packets and photo logs are archived per project; otherwise apply +0.20 LCM when multifamily projects exceed 40% of revenue. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess when projects exceed $25M and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate equal to at least twice the largest contract. If QC photos exist for every concealed joint, disputes resolve quickly; if not, experts default against the installer. Teaching note: Teach developing underwriters to ask for commissioning packages—it is the quickest proxy for future severity. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a national janitorial service operating in California.
|
Cover technician vetting, documentation, risk transfer for subs, limits, pricing levers, ISO class code 96816, and payroll rating basis, and California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the national janitorial service in California because in-home services tied to provides floor care, medical office cleaning, and construction final cleans raise negligent workmanship and property damage allegations while California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations. Exposure identification: Technicians track water, chemicals, or tools into client spaces, creating slip and property hazards. The operation faces wet-floor slips, property damage from chemicals, and employee dishonesty claims along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect equipment maintenance logs, certificate tracking for subcontract cleaners, and chemical handling training. Without signed work orders, disputes devolve into he-said-she-said and frequency climbs. Severity view: Severity arises when sensitive equipment or medical spaces shut down due to contamination. Frequency view: Frequency ties to visit volume and subcontract reliance; more night crews mean more miscues. Rating: ISO class code 96816 on a payroll basis. Trend losses per 1,000 service calls and align ISO pricing with the submitted payroll basis. This ensures payroll basis separates day porters from nighttime floor crews. Disposition: Preferred when technicians capture geo-tagged completion photos and client signatures; otherwise apply +12% until electronic checklists feed QA dashboards. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella for nationwide service contracts and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury defends against invasion of privacy or libel allegations from onsite staff. If crews capture before-and-after photos, disputes fade; if not, every damaged item becomes the contractor's problem. Teaching note: Coach juniors to demand workflow screenshots because they evidence both controls and actual exposure counts. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Georgia.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Georgia because electrical assemblies paired with brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect HALT/HASS testing logs, firmware version control repositories, and batch traceability records. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files until traceability closes. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Texas.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Texas because ingestible goods produced alongside brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks trigger contamination allegations whenever Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect supplier approval programs, machine guarding inspections, and CO2 monitoring logs. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 16810 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Preferred once mock recalls prove every lot is traced within two hours; otherwise hold LCM at +0.30 until allergen controls are validated onsite. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella when sales stay regional and controls are hardened and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a national janitorial service operating in Virginia.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 96816, and payroll rating basis, and Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the national janitorial service in Virginia because digital marketing layered onto provides floor care, medical office cleaning, and construction final cleans fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces wet-floor slips, property damage from chemicals, and employee dishonesty claims along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect content rights management repositories, equipment maintenance logs, and marketing legal review steps. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 96816 on a payroll basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 96816 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures payroll basis separates day porters from nighttime floor crews. Disposition: Preferred when legal reviews each campaign and archives approvals with metadata; otherwise add +8% until marketing counsel is formally engaged. Recommend $2M/$4M when national campaigns target regulated products and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a e-commerce furniture brand operating in Indiana.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 61216, and gross sales rating basis, and Indiana caps punitive damages yet requires safety program evidence before credits are granted.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the e-commerce furniture brand in Indiana because digital marketing layered onto designs ready-to-assemble furniture, contracts overseas manufacturing, and manages last-mile delivery fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where Indiana caps punitive damages yet requires safety program evidence before credits are granted. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces tip-over allegations, deck furniture failures, and advertising injury from influencer campaigns along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect content rights management repositories, marketing legal review steps, and CAN-SPAM and TCPA compliance logs. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 61216 on a gross sales basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 61216 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures gross sales include online dropship revenue and showrooms. Disposition: Preferred when legal reviews each campaign and archives approvals with metadata; otherwise apply +0.10 LCM when customer data is harvested without opt-in proof. Recommend $1M/$2M with matching Personal & Advertising Injury sublimit and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Indiana caps punitive damages yet requires safety program evidence before credits are granted will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a commercial solar installer operating in Michigan.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 92478, and payroll rating basis, and Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the commercial solar installer in Michigan because elevated work blending with designs and installs rooftop and ground-mount PV systems with crane picks magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces roof penetrations, energized testing, and completed operations fire allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect fall protection training, daily job hazard analyses, and NFPA 70 (NEC) compliance logs. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 92478 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 92478 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis differentiates field crews from clerical staff. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise grant a -5% credit only when wrap-up OCIP evidence is provided. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a national janitorial service operating in Georgia.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 96816, and payroll rating basis, and Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the national janitorial service in Georgia because assembly occupancies layered with provides floor care, medical office cleaning, and construction final cleans raise life-safety exposures while Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces wet-floor slips, property damage from chemicals, and employee dishonesty claims along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect chemical handling training, NFPA 101 life-safety inspections, and equipment maintenance logs. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 96816 on a payroll basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures payroll basis separates day porters from nighttime floor crews. Disposition: Refer to management when ballroom occupant loads exceed permits and apply a +0.25 LCM if third-party security is not contracted cannot absorb the delta. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella when assemblies stay below 500 occupants and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate completed operations for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Washington.
|
Cover commissioning evidence, warranty management, risk transfer, limits, pricing of run-off exposure, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers.
|
I scope Completed Operations for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Washington because complex building systems tied to performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects cause latent water intrusions where Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers. Exposure identification: Improper flashing, HVAC condensate, or plumbing joints lead to mold and BI claims months after completion. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect crane lift plans, commissioning reports with signatures, and contractual limitation of liability clauses. Without commissioning packets, plaintiffs claim negligent installation and insurers pay to open walls. Severity view: Severity mounts because water damage implicates mold, tenant displacement, and reputational loss. Frequency view: Frequency mirrors project volume and the mix of multifamily vs. commercial shells. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Align payroll and subcontract values with ISO class code 91585 and trend completed ops claims per project. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Accept with run-off reserve monitoring and apply +0.20 LCM when multifamily projects exceed 40% of revenue. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella for light commercial build-outs and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate equal to at least twice the largest contract. If QC photos exist for every concealed joint, disputes resolve quickly; if not, experts default against the installer. Teaching note: Teach developing underwriters to ask for commissioning packages—it is the quickest proxy for future severity. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate completed operations for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Oregon.
|
Cover commissioning evidence, warranty management, risk transfer, limits, pricing of run-off exposure, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims.
|
I scope Completed Operations for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Oregon because complex building systems tied to performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects cause latent water intrusions where Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims. Exposure identification: Improper flashing, HVAC condensate, or plumbing joints lead to mold and BI claims months after completion. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect warranty tracking systems, contractual limitation of liability clauses, and commissioning reports with signatures. Without commissioning packets, plaintiffs claim negligent installation and insurers pay to open walls. Severity view: Severity mounts because water damage implicates mold, tenant displacement, and reputational loss. Frequency view: Frequency mirrors project volume and the mix of multifamily vs. commercial shells. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Align payroll and subcontract values with ISO class code 91585 and trend completed ops claims per project. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Preferred when commissioning packets and photo logs are archived per project; otherwise release a -5% credit when warranty databases track every callback. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella for light commercial build-outs and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate equal to at least twice the largest contract. If QC photos exist for every concealed joint, disputes resolve quickly; if not, experts default against the installer. Teaching note: Teach developing underwriters to ask for commissioning packages—it is the quickest proxy for future severity. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Oregon.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Oregon because ingestible goods produced alongside brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks trigger contamination allegations whenever Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect third-party sanitation audits, supplier approval programs, and batch traceability records. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 16810 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Refer when outsourced fillers resist audits because add +20% for co-packers lacking third-party audits cannot offset systemic risk. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella when sales stay regional and controls are hardened and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a boutique hotel with conference space operating in Texas.
|
Cover technician vetting, documentation, risk transfer for subs, limits, pricing levers, ISO class code 70110, and area rating basis, and Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the boutique hotel with conference space in Texas because in-home services tied to high-rise lodging with rooftop bars, banquet halls, and pools raise negligent workmanship and property damage allegations while Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity. Exposure identification: Technicians track water, chemicals, or tools into client spaces, creating slip and property hazards. The operation faces slip hazards near pools, alcohol service, and elevator crowds along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect NFPA sprinkler and alarm tests, certificate tracking for subcontract cleaners, and background checks and ID badges. Without signed work orders, disputes devolve into he-said-she-said and frequency climbs. Severity view: Severity arises when sensitive equipment or medical spaces shut down due to contamination. Frequency view: Frequency ties to visit volume and subcontract reliance; more night crews mean more miscues. Rating: ISO class code 70110 on a area basis. Trend losses per 1,000 service calls and align ISO pricing with the submitted area basis. This ensures area basis ties to occupied square footage plus incidental restaurants. Disposition: Preferred when technicians capture geo-tagged completion photos and client signatures; otherwise allow a -4% credit when customer surveys show zero unresolved claims. Recommend $1M/$2M stand-alone when work stays local and high-touch supervision exists and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury defends against invasion of privacy or libel allegations from onsite staff. If crews capture before-and-after photos, disputes fade; if not, every damaged item becomes the contractor's problem. Teaching note: Coach juniors to demand workflow screenshots because they evidence both controls and actual exposure counts. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Texas applies a 51% modified comparative negligence bar but scrutinizes punitive awards and contractual indemnity will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a urban apparel retailer operating in Virginia.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 61212, and gross sales rating basis, and Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage.
|
I scope Products Liability for the urban apparel retailer in Virginia because ingestible goods produced alongside flagship stores that host DJs, escalators, and rotating pop-up tenants trigger contamination allegations whenever Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces slick polished concrete, event-driven crowd surges, and merchandise displays near exits along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect supplier approval programs, HAACP or HARPC plans, and escalator maintenance contracts. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 61212 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 61212 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales capture both flagship stores and e-commerce flash drops. Disposition: Preferred once mock recalls prove every lot is traced within two hours; otherwise grant a -7% credit when full mock recalls finish under two hours. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella when sales stay regional and controls are hardened and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a property management firm operating in California.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 61217, and area rating basis, and California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the property management firm in California because digital marketing layered onto manages mixed-use towers, retail promenades, and parking decks fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces parking structure falls, negligent security allegations, and lobby slip hazards along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect marketing legal review steps, elevator maintenance contracts, and snow and ice protocols. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 61217 on a area basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 61217 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures area basis ties to managed square footage including garages and amenities. Disposition: Preferred when legal reviews each campaign and archives approvals with metadata; otherwise apply +0.10 LCM when customer data is harvested without opt-in proof. Recommend $2M/$4M when national campaigns target regulated products and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a nutraceutical manufacturer operating in New York.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 59650, and gross sales rating basis, and New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation.
|
I scope Products Liability for the nutraceutical manufacturer in New York because electrical assemblies paired with GMP plants blending botanicals, encapsulation lines, and fulfillment centers invite fire and shock allegations, especially where New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces potency variance, cross-contamination, and mislabeling claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect FDA cGMP batch records, supplier PPAP reviews, and HALT/HASS testing logs. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 59650 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis reflects capsules, powders, and online subscriptions. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a urban apparel retailer operating in Georgia.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 61212, and gross sales rating basis, and Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the urban apparel retailer in Georgia because digital marketing layered onto flagship stores that host DJs, escalators, and rotating pop-up tenants fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces slick polished concrete, event-driven crowd surges, and merchandise displays near exits along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect crisis communication playbooks, CAN-SPAM and TCPA compliance logs, and tenant certificate of insurance tracking. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 61212 on a gross sales basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 61212 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures gross sales capture both flagship stores and e-commerce flash drops. Disposition: Accept with annual marketing audits and add +8% until marketing counsel is formally engaged. Recommend $1M/$2M with matching Personal & Advertising Injury sublimit and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Colorado.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Colorado because elevated work blending with performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect crane lift plans, subcontractor certificate tracking, and engineering sign-off on formwork. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91585 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise load +20% until subcontractor default clauses are tightened. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a HVAC mechanical contractor operating in New York.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91580, and payroll rating basis, and New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the HVAC mechanical contractor in New York because elevated work blending with design-build HVAC projects, crane lifts, and ongoing maintenance agreements magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces hot work near combustibles, condensate leaks, and completed operations mold claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect daily job hazard analyses, subcontractor certificate tracking, and TAB (testing, adjusting, balancing) reports. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91580 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91580 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll captures sheet-metal fabrication and service crews. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise apply +0.30 LCM on crane-intensive projects. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a multi-state restaurant group operating in Illinois.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 09120, and gross sales rating basis, and Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25%.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the multi-state restaurant group in Illinois because assembly occupancies layered with full-service kitchens, valet stands, patios, and mobile catering crews raise life-safety exposures while Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25%. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces grease-laden vapors, wet tile floors, and valet fender-bender allegations along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect contracted fire watch logs, valet key control logs, and ServSafe training rosters. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 09120 on a gross sales basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures gross sales accommodate alcohol receipts and catering vans. Disposition: Accept on a surveillance plan and credit -3% only after egress counts align with NFPA 101 until evacuation drills improve. Recommend $2M/$4M primary plus $10M excess for hotels hosting conventions and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25% will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a custom electronics assembler operating in Ohio.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 58958, and gross sales rating basis, and Ohio caps punitive damages but construction defect allegations continue, demanding completed operations rigor.
|
I scope Products Liability for the custom electronics assembler in Ohio because electrical assemblies paired with surface-mount soldering, firmware loading, and burn-in testing invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Ohio caps punitive damages but construction defect allegations continue, demanding completed operations rigor. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces battery failures, overheating boards, and firmware bugs triggering recalls along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect supplier PPAP documentation, static control logs, and HALT/HASS testing logs. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 58958 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales account for OEM assemblies and direct shipments. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files until traceability closes. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Ohio caps punitive damages but construction defect allegations continue, demanding completed operations rigor will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a custom electronics assembler operating in Illinois.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 58958, and gross sales rating basis, and Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25%.
|
I scope Products Liability for the custom electronics assembler in Illinois because electrical assemblies paired with surface-mount soldering, firmware loading, and burn-in testing invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25%. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces battery failures, overheating boards, and firmware bugs triggering recalls along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect firmware version control repositories, UL certification files, and UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 58958 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales account for OEM assemblies and direct shipments. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and offer a -5% credit when NRTL data proves thermal runaway controls until traceability closes. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25% will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Arizona.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Arizona because ingestible goods produced alongside brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks trigger contamination allegations whenever Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect batch traceability tests, HAACP or HARPC plans, and CO2 monitoring logs. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 16810 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Preferred once mock recalls prove every lot is traced within two hours; otherwise grant a -7% credit when full mock recalls finish under two hours. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess for national distribution and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in California.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the concrete foundation subcontractor in California because elevated work blending with performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect crane lift plans, engineering sign-off on formwork, and subcontractor certificate tracking. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91585 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise apply +0.30 LCM on crane-intensive projects. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a multi-state restaurant group operating in Arizona.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 09120, and gross sales rating basis, and Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the multi-state restaurant group in Arizona because assembly occupancies layered with full-service kitchens, valet stands, patios, and mobile catering crews raise life-safety exposures while Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces grease-laden vapors, wet tile floors, and valet fender-bender allegations along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect ADA and slip-resistant surface audits, ServSafe training rosters, and contracted fire watch logs. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 09120 on a gross sales basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures gross sales accommodate alcohol receipts and catering vans. Disposition: Accept on a surveillance plan and apply a +0.25 LCM if third-party security is not contracted until evacuation drills improve. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella when assemblies stay below 500 occupants and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Michigan.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Michigan because elevated work blending with performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect ANSI A10 fall protection plans, completed operations photo documentation, and daily job hazard analyses. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91585 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Refer if Labor Law venues apply and every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos cannot be validated. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M excess when projects stay under three stories and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Florida.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Florida because ingestible goods produced alongside brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks trigger contamination allegations whenever Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect batch traceability tests, machine guarding inspections, and CO2 monitoring logs. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 16810 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Accept with a surveillance reminder and grant a -7% credit when full mock recalls finish under two hours until QA automation is verified. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella when sales stay regional and controls are hardened and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in New York.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in New York because electrical assemblies paired with brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks invite fire and shock allegations, especially where New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, batch traceability records, and firmware version control repositories. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and offer a -5% credit when NRTL data proves thermal runaway controls until traceability closes. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how New York Labor Law 240/241 imposes near absolute liability on elevation claims and drives defense inflation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Virginia.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Virginia because electrical assemblies paired with brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect HALT/HASS testing logs, supplier PPAP reviews, and machine guarding inspections. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision until traceability closes. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a HVAC mechanical contractor operating in Massachusetts.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91580, and payroll rating basis, and Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the HVAC mechanical contractor in Massachusetts because elevated work blending with design-build HVAC projects, crane lifts, and ongoing maintenance agreements magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces hot work near combustibles, condensate leaks, and completed operations mold claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect completed operations photo documentation, subcontractor certificate tracking, and lockout/tagout procedures. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91580 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91580 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll captures sheet-metal fabrication and service crews. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise grant a -5% credit only when wrap-up OCIP evidence is provided. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a commercial solar installer operating in Arizona.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 92478, and payroll rating basis, and Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the commercial solar installer in Arizona because elevated work blending with designs and installs rooftop and ground-mount PV systems with crane picks magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces roof penetrations, energized testing, and completed operations fire allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect subcontractor certificate tracking, ANSI A10 fall protection plans, and subcontractor certificates of insurance. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 92478 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 92478 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis differentiates field crews from clerical staff. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise apply +0.30 LCM on crane-intensive projects. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Arizona's pure comparative negligence mixes with active construction defect dockets and desert slip exposures will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a e-commerce furniture brand operating in Illinois.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 61216, and gross sales rating basis, and Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25%.
|
I scope Products Liability for the e-commerce furniture brand in Illinois because electrical assemblies paired with designs ready-to-assemble furniture, contracts overseas manufacturing, and manages last-mile delivery invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25%. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces tip-over allegations, deck furniture failures, and advertising injury from influencer campaigns along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect assembly video instructions, supplier PPAP reviews, and firmware version control repositories. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 61216 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales include online dropship revenue and showrooms. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files until traceability closes. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25% will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Minnesota.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Minnesota expects rigorous snow-and-ice programs and juries lean on incident data to infer notice.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Minnesota because ingestible goods produced alongside brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks trigger contamination allegations whenever Minnesota expects rigorous snow-and-ice programs and juries lean on incident data to infer notice. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect machine guarding inspections, supplier approval programs, and CO2 monitoring logs. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 16810 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Accept with a surveillance reminder and grant a -7% credit when full mock recalls finish under two hours until QA automation is verified. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella when sales stay regional and controls are hardened and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Minnesota expects rigorous snow-and-ice programs and juries lean on incident data to infer notice will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a specialty grocery chain operating in North Carolina.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 09100, and gross sales rating basis, and North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings.
|
I scope Products Liability for the specialty grocery chain in North Carolina because electrical assemblies paired with regional groceries with commercial kitchens, sampling stations, and parking lots invite fire and shock allegations, especially where North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces hot soup bars, refrigerated cases, and slick entry mats during storms along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect parking lot lighting audits, vendor hold-harmless agreements, and HALT/HASS testing logs. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 09100 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales include prepared foods, catering, and delivery apps. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise offer a -5% credit when NRTL data proves thermal runaway controls. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a custom electronics assembler operating in Georgia.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 58958, and gross sales rating basis, and Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays.
|
I scope Products Liability for the custom electronics assembler in Georgia because electrical assemblies paired with surface-mount soldering, firmware loading, and burn-in testing invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces battery failures, overheating boards, and firmware bugs triggering recalls along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, firmware version control repositories, and UL certification files. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 58958 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales account for OEM assemblies and direct shipments. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Colorado.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Colorado because elevated work blending with performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect completed operations photo documentation, subcontractor certificate tracking, and engineering sign-off on formwork. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91585 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise load +20% until subcontractor default clauses are tightened. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a nutraceutical manufacturer operating in Louisiana.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 59650, and gross sales rating basis, and Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend.
|
I scope Products Liability for the nutraceutical manufacturer in Louisiana because ingestible goods produced alongside GMP plants blending botanicals, encapsulation lines, and fulfillment centers trigger contamination allegations whenever Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces potency variance, cross-contamination, and mislabeling claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect batch traceability tests, FDA cGMP batch records, and third-party sanitation audits. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 59650 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 59650 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales basis reflects capsules, powders, and online subscriptions. Disposition: Preferred once mock recalls prove every lot is traced within two hours; otherwise grant a -7% credit when full mock recalls finish under two hours. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess for national distribution and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a ag equipment manufacturer operating in Washington.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16202, and units rating basis, and Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers.
|
I scope Products Liability for the ag equipment manufacturer in Washington because electrical assemblies paired with fabricates tillage implements, installs hydraulics, and tests in proving fields invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces entanglement hazards, hydraulic failures, and rollover allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect ANSI/ASABE design file retention, UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, and supplier PPAP reviews. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16202 on a units basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures unit count basis follows ISO schedule for agricultural machinery. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision until traceability closes. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Pennsylvania.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Pennsylvania's joint-and-several structure attaches above 60% fault and discourages weak documentation.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Pennsylvania because electrical assemblies paired with brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Pennsylvania's joint-and-several structure attaches above 60% fault and discourages weak documentation. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect HALT/HASS testing logs, machine guarding inspections, and firmware version control repositories. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Pennsylvania's joint-and-several structure attaches above 60% fault and discourages weak documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a custom electronics assembler operating in Florida.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 58958, and gross sales rating basis, and Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance.
|
I scope Products Liability for the custom electronics assembler in Florida because electrical assemblies paired with surface-mount soldering, firmware loading, and burn-in testing invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces battery failures, overheating boards, and firmware bugs triggering recalls along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect HALT/HASS testing logs, firmware version control repositories, and supplier PPAP documentation. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 58958 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales account for OEM assemblies and direct shipments. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision until traceability closes. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a property management firm operating in Massachusetts.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 61217, and area rating basis, and Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the property management firm in Massachusetts because assembly occupancies layered with manages mixed-use towers, retail promenades, and parking decks raise life-safety exposures while Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces parking structure falls, negligent security allegations, and lobby slip hazards along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect ADA and slip-resistant surface audits, elevator maintenance contracts, and NFPA 101 life-safety inspections. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 61217 on a area basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures area basis ties to managed square footage including garages and amenities. Disposition: Preferred when annual NFPA 101 audits document every life-safety correction; otherwise load +15% until elevators show predictive maintenance analytics. Recommend $2M/$4M primary plus $10M excess for hotels hosting conventions and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Michigan.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Michigan because electrical assemblies paired with brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect CO2 monitoring logs, firmware version control repositories, and batch traceability records. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise offer a -5% credit when NRTL data proves thermal runaway controls. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a medical device distributor operating in Illinois.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 45650, and gross sales rating basis, and Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25%.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the medical device distributor in Illinois because digital marketing layered onto warehouses implantable devices, supports surgeons, and arranges demos fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25%. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces failed sterilization, mislabeling, and inadequate instructions for use along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect CAN-SPAM and TCPA compliance logs, lot tracking systems, and marketing legal review steps. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 45650 on a gross sales basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 45650 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures gross sales reflect consigned hospital inventory and drop shipments. Disposition: Preferred when legal reviews each campaign and archives approvals with metadata; otherwise add +8% until marketing counsel is formally engaged. Recommend $2M/$4M when national campaigns target regulated products and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Illinois venues see biometric privacy and construction defect suits with joint-and-several exposure above 25% will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a property management firm operating in Louisiana.
|
Cover technician vetting, documentation, risk transfer for subs, limits, pricing levers, ISO class code 61217, and area rating basis, and Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the property management firm in Louisiana because in-home services tied to manages mixed-use towers, retail promenades, and parking decks raise negligent workmanship and property damage allegations while Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend. Exposure identification: Technicians track water, chemicals, or tools into client spaces, creating slip and property hazards. The operation faces parking structure falls, negligent security allegations, and lobby slip hazards along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect smartphone checklists with photo verification, certificate tracking for tenants and vendors, and customer sign-off forms. Without signed work orders, disputes devolve into he-said-she-said and frequency climbs. Severity view: Severity arises when sensitive equipment or medical spaces shut down due to contamination. Frequency view: Frequency ties to visit volume and subcontract reliance; more night crews mean more miscues. Rating: ISO class code 61217 on a area basis. Trend losses per 1,000 service calls and align ISO pricing with the submitted area basis. This ensures area basis ties to managed square footage including garages and amenities. Disposition: Accept with audit triggers and apply +12% until electronic checklists feed QA dashboards while onboarding tech upgrades. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella for nationwide service contracts and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury defends against invasion of privacy or libel allegations from onsite staff. If crews capture before-and-after photos, disputes fade; if not, every damaged item becomes the contractor's problem. Teaching note: Coach juniors to demand workflow screenshots because they evidence both controls and actual exposure counts. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a multi-state restaurant group operating in North Carolina.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 09120, and gross sales rating basis, and North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the multi-state restaurant group in North Carolina because assembly occupancies layered with full-service kitchens, valet stands, patios, and mobile catering crews raise life-safety exposures while North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces grease-laden vapors, wet tile floors, and valet fender-bender allegations along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect ADA and slip-resistant surface audits, contracted fire watch logs, and valet key control logs. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 09120 on a gross sales basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures gross sales accommodate alcohol receipts and catering vans. Disposition: Refer to management when ballroom occupant loads exceed permits and apply a +0.25 LCM if third-party security is not contracted cannot absorb the delta. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella when assemblies stay below 500 occupants and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a multi-state restaurant group operating in Ohio.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 09120, and gross sales rating basis, and Ohio caps punitive damages but construction defect allegations continue, demanding completed operations rigor.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the multi-state restaurant group in Ohio because assembly occupancies layered with full-service kitchens, valet stands, patios, and mobile catering crews raise life-safety exposures while Ohio caps punitive damages but construction defect allegations continue, demanding completed operations rigor. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces grease-laden vapors, wet tile floors, and valet fender-bender allegations along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect contracted fire watch logs, ADA and slip-resistant surface audits, and third-party security reports. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 09120 on a gross sales basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures gross sales accommodate alcohol receipts and catering vans. Disposition: Accept on a surveillance plan and load +15% until elevators show predictive maintenance analytics until evacuation drills improve. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella when assemblies stay below 500 occupants and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Ohio caps punitive damages but construction defect allegations continue, demanding completed operations rigor will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a specialty grocery chain operating in North Carolina.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 09100, and gross sales rating basis, and North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the specialty grocery chain in North Carolina because digital marketing layered onto regional groceries with commercial kitchens, sampling stations, and parking lots fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces hot soup bars, refrigerated cases, and slick entry mats during storms along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect sanitation logs for prep areas, parking lot lighting audits, and CAN-SPAM and TCPA compliance logs. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 09100 on a gross sales basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 09100 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures gross sales include prepared foods, catering, and delivery apps. Disposition: Preferred when legal reviews each campaign and archives approvals with metadata; otherwise add +8% until marketing counsel is formally engaged. Recommend $2M/$4M when national campaigns target regulated products and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how North Carolina's contributory negligence defense works only when documentation proves the invitee ignored warnings will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a ag equipment manufacturer operating in Louisiana.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 16202, and units rating basis, and Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend.
|
I scope Products Liability for the ag equipment manufacturer in Louisiana because ingestible goods produced alongside fabricates tillage implements, installs hydraulics, and tests in proving fields trigger contamination allegations whenever Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces entanglement hazards, hydraulic failures, and rollover allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect HAACP or HARPC plans, dealer training programs, and batch traceability tests. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 16202 on a units basis. Tie ISO class code 16202 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures unit count basis follows ISO schedule for agricultural machinery. Disposition: Preferred once mock recalls prove every lot is traced within two hours; otherwise add +20% for co-packers lacking third-party audits. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess for national distribution and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a nutraceutical manufacturer operating in Colorado.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 59650, and gross sales rating basis, and Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight.
|
I scope Products Liability for the nutraceutical manufacturer in Colorado because electrical assemblies paired with GMP plants blending botanicals, encapsulation lines, and fulfillment centers invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces potency variance, cross-contamination, and mislabeling claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect firmware version control repositories, UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, and automated weight checks. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 59650 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis reflects capsules, powders, and online subscriptions. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Colorado's construction defect statutes and 50% bar require disciplined subcontractor oversight will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a medical device distributor operating in New Jersey.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 45650, and gross sales rating basis, and New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act adds treble damages for deceptive labeling and aggressive plaintiff tactics.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the medical device distributor in New Jersey because digital marketing layered onto warehouses implantable devices, supports surgeons, and arranges demos fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act adds treble damages for deceptive labeling and aggressive plaintiff tactics. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces failed sterilization, mislabeling, and inadequate instructions for use along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect temperature monitoring, lot tracking systems, and content rights management repositories. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 45650 on a gross sales basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 45650 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures gross sales reflect consigned hospital inventory and drop shipments. Disposition: Accept with annual marketing audits and apply +0.10 LCM when customer data is harvested without opt-in proof. Recommend $2M/$4M when national campaigns target regulated products and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act adds treble damages for deceptive labeling and aggressive plaintiff tactics will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a specialty grocery chain operating in California.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 09100, and gross sales rating basis, and California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations.
|
I scope Products Liability for the specialty grocery chain in California because ingestible goods produced alongside regional groceries with commercial kitchens, sampling stations, and parking lots trigger contamination allegations whenever California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces hot soup bars, refrigerated cases, and slick entry mats during storms along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect batch traceability tests, vendor hold-harmless agreements, and third-party sanitation audits. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 09100 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 09100 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales include prepared foods, catering, and delivery apps. Disposition: Preferred once mock recalls prove every lot is traced within two hours; otherwise grant a -7% credit when full mock recalls finish under two hours. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess for national distribution and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a nutraceutical manufacturer operating in Georgia.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 59650, and gross sales rating basis, and Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays.
|
I scope Products Liability for the nutraceutical manufacturer in Georgia because electrical assemblies paired with GMP plants blending botanicals, encapsulation lines, and fulfillment centers invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces potency variance, cross-contamination, and mislabeling claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect firmware version control repositories, UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, and supplier PPAP reviews. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 59650 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis reflects capsules, powders, and online subscriptions. Disposition: Preferred when UL or CSA listing reports align with every shipped configuration; otherwise apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a commercial solar installer operating in Oregon.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 92478, and payroll rating basis, and Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the commercial solar installer in Oregon because elevated work blending with designs and installs rooftop and ground-mount PV systems with crane picks magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces roof penetrations, energized testing, and completed operations fire allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect subcontractor certificates of insurance, NFPA 70 (NEC) compliance logs, and subcontractor certificate tracking. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 92478 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 92478 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis differentiates field crews from clerical staff. Disposition: Accept with field audits plus load +20% until subcontractor default clauses are tightened until tie-off compliance is verified. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M excess when projects stay under three stories and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Oregon allows comparative fault but joint liability can surface on environmental and product claims will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Louisiana.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Louisiana because electrical assemblies paired with brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect HALT/HASS testing logs, CO2 monitoring logs, and batch traceability records. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files until traceability closes. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a multi-state restaurant group operating in Washington.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 09120, and gross sales rating basis, and Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the multi-state restaurant group in Washington because assembly occupancies layered with full-service kitchens, valet stands, patios, and mobile catering crews raise life-safety exposures while Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces grease-laden vapors, wet tile floors, and valet fender-bender allegations along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect NFPA 101 life-safety inspections, contracted fire watch logs, and hood and duct cleaning records. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 09120 on a gross sales basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures gross sales accommodate alcohol receipts and catering vans. Disposition: Refer to management when ballroom occupant loads exceed permits and credit -3% only after egress counts align with NFPA 101 cannot absorb the delta. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella when assemblies stay below 500 occupants and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate premises liability for a boutique hotel with conference space operating in Virginia.
|
Cover life-safety systems, crowd management, vendor indemnification, limits, pricing justification, ISO class code 70110, and area rating basis, and Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage.
|
I scope Premises Liability for the boutique hotel with conference space in Virginia because assembly occupancies layered with high-rise lodging with rooftop bars, banquet halls, and pools raise life-safety exposures while Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage. Exposure identification: Egress bottlenecks, cooking operations, and elevator queues create crowd-control issues. The operation faces slip hazards near pools, alcohol service, and elevator crowds along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect NFPA sprinkler and alarm tests, contracted fire watch logs, and pool lifeguard certifications. Without third-party documentation, claims shift toward negligent security or negligent maintenance. Severity view: Severity shoots up because smoke inhalation, falls from heights, or negligent security verdicts exceed $5M routinely. Frequency view: Frequency rises during conventions or holiday events when occupant loads spike beyond design. Rating: ISO class code 70110 on a area basis. Validate square footage by occupancy type and align ISO area rates with actual event schedules before applying modifiers. This ensures area basis ties to occupied square footage plus incidental restaurants. Disposition: Accept on a surveillance plan and credit -3% only after egress counts align with NFPA 101 until evacuation drills improve. Recommend $2M/$4M primary plus $10M excess for hotels hosting conventions and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Personal & Advertising Injury responds to wrongful eviction or libel allegations tied to guest relations. If exit drills and contract security are documented, severity moderates; if not, juries assume disregard for NFPA guidance. Teaching note: Coach trainees to request life-safety reports annually so they can benchmark controls against NFPA findings. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Virginia.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Virginia because ingestible goods produced alongside brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks trigger contamination allegations whenever Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect batch traceability tests, batch traceability records, and third-party sanitation audits. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 16810 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Preferred once mock recalls prove every lot is traced within two hours; otherwise grant a -7% credit when full mock recalls finish under two hours. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess for national distribution and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because contributory negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Virginia's contributory negligence regime rewards meticulous maintenance logs and warning signage will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate completed operations for a HVAC mechanical contractor operating in California.
|
Cover commissioning evidence, warranty management, risk transfer, limits, pricing of run-off exposure, ISO class code 91580, and payroll rating basis, and California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations.
|
I scope Completed Operations for the HVAC mechanical contractor in California because complex building systems tied to design-build HVAC projects, crane lifts, and ongoing maintenance agreements cause latent water intrusions where California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations. Exposure identification: Improper flashing, HVAC condensate, or plumbing joints lead to mold and BI claims months after completion. The operation faces hot work near combustibles, condensate leaks, and completed operations mold claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect photos of concealed work, contractual limitation of liability clauses, and lockout/tagout procedures. Without commissioning packets, plaintiffs claim negligent installation and insurers pay to open walls. Severity view: Severity mounts because water damage implicates mold, tenant displacement, and reputational loss. Frequency view: Frequency mirrors project volume and the mix of multifamily vs. commercial shells. Rating: ISO class code 91580 on a payroll basis. Align payroll and subcontract values with ISO class code 91580 and trend completed ops claims per project. This ensures payroll captures sheet-metal fabrication and service crews. Disposition: Preferred when commissioning packets and photo logs are archived per project; otherwise apply +0.20 LCM when multifamily projects exceed 40% of revenue. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M excess when projects exceed $25M and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate equal to at least twice the largest contract. If QC photos exist for every concealed joint, disputes resolve quickly; if not, experts default against the installer. Teaching note: Teach developing underwriters to ask for commissioning packages—it is the quickest proxy for future severity. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how California juries frequently entertain Proposition 65 allegations and nuclear verdict expectations will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a concrete foundation subcontractor operating in Washington.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 91585, and payroll rating basis, and Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the concrete foundation subcontractor in Washington because elevated work blending with performs excavation, forms, reinforcing steel, and pours for mid-rise projects magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces rebar impalements, forming collapses, and completed operations water intrusion along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect ANSI A10 fall protection plans, daily job hazard analyses, and completed operations photo documentation. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 91585 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 91585 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis reflects onsite labor and incidental equipment rental. Disposition: Preferred only when every crew signs daily fall-protection JSAs and uploads photos; otherwise grant a -5% credit only when wrap-up OCIP evidence is provided. Recommend $2M/$4M primary with $10M umbrella for crane or roofing work and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a specialty grocery chain operating in Massachusetts.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 09100, and gross sales rating basis, and Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the specialty grocery chain in Massachusetts because digital marketing layered onto regional groceries with commercial kitchens, sampling stations, and parking lots fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces hot soup bars, refrigerated cases, and slick entry mats during storms along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect sanitation logs for prep areas, parking lot lighting audits, and CAN-SPAM and TCPA compliance logs. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 09100 on a gross sales basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 09100 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures gross sales include prepared foods, catering, and delivery apps. Disposition: Accept with annual marketing audits and provide a -3% credit when content rights management software is active. Recommend $2M/$4M when national campaigns target regulated products and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Massachusetts Chapter 93A can treble damages for unfair practices, affecting product and advertising injury picks will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a custom electronics assembler operating in New Jersey.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 58958, and gross sales rating basis, and New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act adds treble damages for deceptive labeling and aggressive plaintiff tactics.
|
I scope Products Liability for the custom electronics assembler in New Jersey because electrical assemblies paired with surface-mount soldering, firmware loading, and burn-in testing invite fire and shock allegations, especially where New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act adds treble damages for deceptive labeling and aggressive plaintiff tactics. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces battery failures, overheating boards, and firmware bugs triggering recalls along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect firmware version control repositories, UL certification files, and HALT/HASS testing logs. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 58958 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales account for OEM assemblies and direct shipments. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision until traceability closes. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act adds treble damages for deceptive labeling and aggressive plaintiff tactics will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.nist.gov/standards"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.nist.gov/standards",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a ag equipment manufacturer operating in Michigan.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16202, and units rating basis, and Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation.
|
I scope Products Liability for the ag equipment manufacturer in Michigan because electrical assemblies paired with fabricates tillage implements, installs hydraulics, and tests in proving fields invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces entanglement hazards, hydraulic failures, and rollover allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect supplier PPAP reviews, firmware version control repositories, and ANSI/ASABE design file retention. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16202 on a units basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures unit count basis follows ISO schedule for agricultural machinery. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and offer a -5% credit when NRTL data proves thermal runaway controls until traceability closes. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a custom electronics assembler operating in Florida.
|
Cover ingredient sourcing, quality control, recall planning, limits, pricing modifiers, ISO class code 58958, and gross sales rating basis, and Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance.
|
I scope Products Liability for the custom electronics assembler in Florida because ingestible goods produced alongside surface-mount soldering, firmware loading, and burn-in testing trigger contamination allegations whenever Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance. Exposure identification: Cross-contact, temperature abuse, and allergen mislabeling can trigger nationwide recalls. The operation faces battery failures, overheating boards, and firmware bugs triggering recalls along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect static control logs, UL certification files, and batch traceability tests. Missing lot tracking or kill-step validation extends recall scope and spikes severity. Severity view: Severity hinges on hospitalizations or class actions, so per-occurrence limits must contemplate multi-state recalls. Frequency view: Frequency tracks with batch size and outsourced co-packers, so the model must monitor supplier discipline. Rating: ISO class code 58958 on a gross sales basis. Tie ISO class code 58958 to gross sales and adjust for per-unit exposure when exports exceed 25%. This ensures gross sales account for OEM assemblies and direct shipments. Disposition: Accept with a surveillance reminder and grant a -7% credit when full mock recalls finish under two hours until QA automation is verified. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M umbrella when sales stay regional and controls are hardened and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Set the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least two times the occurrence limit to absorb recall clusters. If UL or third-party labs certify each lot, severity drops; if co-packers skip HACCP logs, frequency spikes. Teaching note: Remind trainees that supply-chain transparency drives both rating basis accuracy and coverage negotiations. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Florida's humidity keeps slip frequency high and plaintiff bars quickly allege negligent maintenance will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a ag equipment manufacturer operating in Georgia.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16202, and units rating basis, and Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays.
|
I scope Products Liability for the ag equipment manufacturer in Georgia because electrical assemblies paired with fabricates tillage implements, installs hydraulics, and tests in proving fields invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces entanglement hazards, hydraulic failures, and rollover allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, dealer training programs, and firmware version control repositories. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16202 on a units basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures unit count basis follows ISO schedule for agricultural machinery. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision until traceability closes. Recommend $2M/$4M plus $15M excess for smart-home electronics and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Georgia juries have issued multiple nuclear verdicts on premises and trucking cases with punitive overlays will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a custom electronics assembler operating in Michigan.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 58958, and gross sales rating basis, and Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation.
|
I scope Products Liability for the custom electronics assembler in Michigan because electrical assemblies paired with surface-mount soldering, firmware loading, and burn-in testing invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces battery failures, overheating boards, and firmware bugs triggering recalls along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect UL certification files, UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, and supplier PPAP reviews. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 58958 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales account for OEM assemblies and direct shipments. Disposition: Accept with engineering audits and apply +25% until third-party labs certify the latest revision until traceability closes. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because modified comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Michigan product liability reforms still expect QMS evidence and scrutinize completed operations documentation will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate products liability for a craft brewery and taproom operating in Louisiana.
|
Cover product design controls, UL or NRTL testing, supply-chain oversight, limits, pricing rationale, ISO class code 16810, and gross sales rating basis, and Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend.
|
I scope Products Liability for the craft brewery and taproom in Louisiana because electrical assemblies paired with brewing operations with canning lines, tours, and food trucks invite fire and shock allegations, especially where Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend. Exposure identification: Battery failures, overheating PCBs, and firmware defects can generate cascading losses. The operation faces crowded taprooms, hot wort transfer, and product spoilage claims along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect UL 1998 or UL 60730 certifications, batch traceability records, and firmware version control repositories. Without certification and configuration management, subrogation stalls and severity balloons. Severity view: Severity rises because fires can total structures and trigger subrogation battles with utilities. Frequency view: Frequency correlates with rapid design changes and outsourced assembly lines. Rating: ISO class code 16810 on a gross sales basis. Validate unit counts against ISO schedules and convert to an equivalent gross sales exposure for trending. This ensures gross sales basis captures taproom pours and packaged distribution. Disposition: Refer when firmware revisions outpace testing and hold a +0.15 LCM when suppliers decline to share PPAP files cannot absorb the exposure. Recommend $1M/$2M with $5M umbrella for limited regional pilots and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Maintain a Products-Completed Operations Aggregate no less than twice the occurrence limit for nationwide tech launches. If firmware is validated through HALT testing, severity moderates; if updates ship without regression testing, claim frequency accelerates. Teaching note: Coach analysts to align engineering change orders with policy term dates so coverage matches the actual design at risk. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate operations liability for a commercial solar installer operating in Washington.
|
Cover fall protection controls, subcontractor risk transfer, completed operations evidence, limits, pricing debits, ISO class code 92478, and payroll rating basis, and Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers.
|
I scope Operations Liability for the commercial solar installer in Washington because elevated work blending with designs and installs rooftop and ground-mount PV systems with crane picks magnifies Labor Law and fall-from-height claims while Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers. Exposure identification: Crane picks, roof penetrations, and scaffold ties can injure workers or the public. The operation faces roof penetrations, energized testing, and completed operations fire allegations along with Products-Completed Operations Aggregate considerations. Control evaluation: I expect NFPA 70 (NEC) compliance logs, completed operations photo documentation, and subcontractor certificates of insurance. Absent signed JSAs and COIs, the GC pushes liability upstream and indemnity gaps surface. Severity view: Severity can exceed $10M because New York Labor Law or similar statutes impose near strict liability. Frequency view: Frequency spikes on multi-employer sites when sequencing breaks down or weather interrupts. Rating: ISO class code 92478 on a payroll basis. Tie payroll by operation to ISO class code 92478 and apply LCM loads for crane or torch hours. This ensures payroll basis differentiates field crews from clerical staff. Disposition: Accept with field audits plus load +20% until subcontractor default clauses are tightened until tie-off compliance is verified. Recommend $1M/$2M plus $5M excess when projects stay under three stories and keep Products-Completed Operations Aggregate engaged because Keep the Products-Completed Operations Aggregate at least equal to the umbrella attachment for ongoing service contracts. If foremen enforce tie-off plans, frequency drops; if day labor works untrained, severity and frequency both spike. Teaching note: Teach analysts to read hold-harmless clauses before quoting so they know whose loss history they underwrite. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Washington allows pure comparative negligence and venue selections with high wage loss multipliers will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.osha.gov/construction"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.osha.gov/construction",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
Explain how a GL underwriter should evaluate personal & advertising injury for a urban apparel retailer operating in Louisiana.
|
Cover content clearance, data privacy controls, vendor oversight, limits, pricing impact, ISO class code 61212, and gross sales rating basis, and Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend.
|
I scope Personal & Advertising Injury for the urban apparel retailer in Louisiana because digital marketing layered onto flagship stores that host DJs, escalators, and rotating pop-up tenants fuels copyright or privacy allegations, particularly where Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend. Exposure identification: Influencer campaigns, data capture, and comparative ads spark defamation or privacy suits. The operation faces slick polished concrete, event-driven crowd surges, and merchandise displays near exits along with Personal & Advertising Injury considerations. Control evaluation: I expect marketing legal review steps, content rights management repositories, and tenant certificate of insurance tracking. Without counsel sign-off, brands recycle unlicensed content and claims balloon. Severity view: Severity spikes when class actions include statutory damages for privacy breaches. Frequency view: Frequency rises with rapid campaign cycles and outsourced agencies. Rating: ISO class code 61212 on a gross sales basis. Fold advertising exposure into ISO class code 61212 by validating gross sales tied to marketing reach. This ensures gross sales capture both flagship stores and e-commerce flash drops. Disposition: Preferred when legal reviews each campaign and archives approvals with metadata; otherwise provide a -3% credit when content rights management software is active. Recommend $1M/$2M with matching Personal & Advertising Injury sublimit and keep Personal & Advertising Injury engaged because Ensure Personal & Advertising Injury limits match the occurrence limit when influencer activity is constant. If marketing counsel clears every drop, litigation risk stays manageable; if freelance creators reuse content carelessly, frequency jumps. Teaching note: Remind analysts that advertising injury sits inside the GL form, so they must audit marketing just like premises exposures. Because pure comparative negligence rules apply, documentation must anticipate how Louisiana's direct action statute lets plaintiffs sue carriers directly and civil law venues elevate defense spend will be argued.
|
[
"https://www.naic.org/"
] |
[
{
"url": "https://www.naic.org/",
"status": "valid",
"reason": "ok"
}
] |
valid
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 17