Tag Archives: Gen Re

High rise fire risk in Asia

Insurance Information Institute research assistant Brent Carris authors today’s post:

In Gen Re’s Property Matters series, Tom Qiu reports that with the super high rise (SHR) construction rate growing each year, there is potential for large scale loss of life and significant property/casualty claims.

Per the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) Year in Review: Asia recorded 107 of the 128, or 84% of the completed high rise constructions for 2016. China alone, accounted for 84 (67%) of the global total.

Incidents like the Grenfell Tower fire this year in London (see our prior post) and Address Downtown hotel fire of 2015 in Dubai, remind us of the fire risk and resulting huge claims surrounding high rises.

In order to properly rate SHR buildings, underwriters must carefully assess technical survey reports along with visual inspections. In addition to underwriting risks, claims management can be very difficult due to the numerous types of policies involved in a SHR building fire.

Covered perils: advertising injury

Insurance Information Institute research manager Maria Sassian brings us an insurance consideration for our next shop at the mall or online:

Insurers have to worry about everything, it seems. For example, the standard commercial general liability policy covers advertising injury. So what constitutes an advertisement?

How about the modest hang tag, the thing that dangles from a piece of clothing as it sits on display at the store? This from a discussion at Gen Re’s blog:

Some courts have broadly construed the definition of advertisement, and policyholders have successfully argued that product packaging and point of sale retail displays qualify as “advertisements.” In E.S.Y., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2015), a competitor sued the insured, alleging it sold clothes with infringing designs and labels on the clothes and its hang tags. The court held that a “hang tag” constituted an “advertisement” such that the insurer owed a duty to defend. The court reasoned that the “hang tag” was not part of the product itself, and “had the additional function of attracting consumers to the garments themselves and to the brand more generally.”