Pre-judgement interest in CGL

[fav1]

So Pre-judgement interest in CGL is not subject to limit?

I know in PAP it is subject to limit...

I'm looking at 2006 #16.

Thanks.

[alphaace]

no its not. And its also broken up by contribution by limits. Anyone know if post-judgement is broken up by contribution by limits as well?

[ReserveRage]

Where does it say that in the current readings? IF you're refering to the problem in the past couple years where they split Pre-judge interest based on the proportion of indemnity paid by Primary vs. Excess, I don't think that's in the current syllabus.

[2M]

Interest in settlements is not subject to limits in CGL and yes I do not believe the pro rata thing is in the current reading

[ReserveRage]

Where? I'm only talking about PRIMARY vs. EXCESS. Not Primary vs. Primary or XS vs. XS.

This specificalyl comes up in the 2005 or 2006 problem where they split $50k in Pre-judge, 25k/25k between primary and excess coverage.

I think it was 1000k Pri, 300k in defense for Pri, 1000k XS. there was 50k in Prejudge and I assumed Primary would cover entire $50k, but solution has $1325k pri, $1025k xs

[2M]

I was agreeing with you the spilit the interest thing doesn't appear to be in the reading

[pokershirt]

I'm probably just confusing myself, but I thought that defense costs were subject to the policy limits for CGL. Did I read this wrong?

[dodgers00]

I'm probably just confusing myself, but I thought that defense costs were subject to the policy limits for CGL. Did I read this wrong?

I didn't think that CGL defense costs were subject to the policy limits. I only remember reading that Employment Practices Liability defense costs are within the limit.

[carrytheCrøss]

I'm probably just confusing myself, but I thought that defense costs were subject to the policy limits for CGL. Did I read this wrong?I believe you read this wrong. Look at 2006, #2. This clearly indicates that defense costs are paid in addition to limits for CGL. What was being debated was whether there is a syllabus reference that addresses pro-rata sharing of prejudgement interest. It appears that there is not, so 2006, #16 seems to be invalid.

You are probably thinking about how defense costs are handled in certain Professional Liability coverages, though CGL insurance is considered distinct from these coverages.

[pokershirt]

I believe you read this wrong. Look at 2006, #2. This clearly indicates that defense costs are paid in addition to limits for CGL. What was being debated was whether there is a syllabus reference that addresses pro-rata sharing of prejudgement interest. It appears that there is not, so 2006, #16 seems to be invalid.

You are probably thinking about how defense costs are handled in certain Professional Liability coverages, though CGL insurance is considered distinct from these coverages.

Thanks for the help. I looked it up and I think it's handled differently if there's coverage under an insured contract and the insured owes for attorney and litigation fees. After that, it then says that defense costs for CGL is in addition of limits.

[carrytheCrøss]

Thanks for the help. I looked it up and I think it's handled differently if there's coverage under an insured contract and the insured owes for attorney and litigation fees. After that, it then says that defense costs for CGL is in addition of limits.Are you reading this from Ch. 8 of Commercial Insurance, specifically under Exclusion b, Contractual Liability?

If this is the case, I believe that the bolded term above refers to the other party's defense costs that must be paid under an insured contract, but these are treated as "damages" and subject to the policy limits. These, then, are the defense costs that are subject to policy limits, not the defense costs of the insured. Good question.

[kendo412]

Are you reading this from Ch. 8 of Commercial Insurance, specifically under Exclusion b, Contractual Liability?

If this is the case, I believe that the bolded term above refers to the other party's defense costs that must be paid under an insured contract, but these are treated as "damages" and subject to the policy limits. These, then, are the defense costs that are subject to policy limits, not the defense costs of the insured. Good question.

That makes sense. I was confused by that as well.