Gasoline at Wagner's station leaked. The loss was substantial and Titeflex, the manufacturer of flexible piping, was one of many defendants. Titeflex's underlying commercial general liability policy paid $1 million and its commercial liability umbrella policy paid $9 million. However the umbrella carrier thought the underlying policy should pay more because of multiple claims, multiple plaintiffs, and multiple time periods.

Click here to see how the courts reacted to the umbrella carrier's demands.

Commercial liability umbrella policies vary significantly from one carrier to another. Key areas of difference are the insuring agreement, duty and right to defend, and when the excess coverage responds.

Click here to review the PF&M analysis of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial Liability Umbrella Coverage Form and consider it as a guide to review other companies' commercial liability umbrella policies.

This court case refers to an "excess" policy. However, that policy could just as easily be an umbrella because the terms excess and umbrella are often used interchangeably. Interchanging these terms can lead to misunderstandings and cause significant gaps in coverage. Excess policies and umbrella policies are not the same, even though both are used to provide coverage in excess of underlying coverage.

Click here for a PF&M article that briefly describes the differences between the excess and the umbrella policies.

A commercial liability excess or umbrella policy is a very important part of many commercial accounts. Although the insured may never have to use it, the coverage provided could mean the difference between it surviving or going out of business when the claim amount is substantial.

Click here for an emarketing article you may want to put on your website or send in a newsletter to highlight the differences between excess and umbrella policies in order to start a conversation with your clients.