- Forcing or endorsing insurance designs onto their franchisees that contain material insurance coverage design flaws. For example, promoting insurance programs that use separate GL and CPL policies on restoration firms, that makes no sense to me considering the irresolvable coverage defects that insurance program design injects into a insurance program.
- Failing to monitor compliance with the franchisor’s own insurance specifications.
- The franchisor enters into master service agreements indemnifying the insurance company to levels far exceeding the individual franchisee’s ability to pay a loss in order to secure work under a master service agreement. If you and the franchisor have good insurance, it should step in to seamlessly pay these losses. However a glitch in the insurance coverage exposes the individual franchisee through indemnity agreements to an elevated level of risk.
- His insurance agent
- The franchisor
- The two networks
- The cleaners association
- Insurance regulators
- The franchisor has good insurance requirements, actually the best in the business. But the franchisor has no review process in place to evaluate the actual insurance carried by the franchisees.
- The insurance agent did not pay close enough attention to the insurance requirements or may never have seen the insurance requirements in the three contracts. As requested by the contractor, the insurance agent issued insurance certificates over the years representing coverage on the certificates of insurance that was not in the policies. With compliant insurance certificates in hand, all three organizations never questioned the underlying insurance of the restoration firm - there was no reason to.
- Issuing insurance certificates that misrepresent the coverage in the actual policies is now illegal in more than 40 states, including the state this firm and their insurance agent are located in. I know the insurance agent on this firm would never knowingly break the law, especially 96 times. Even insurance regulations on bogus certificates of insurance that could pull the insurance agent’s license or subject the agent to criminal prosecution in the state did not prevent bogus insurance certificates from short circuiting the benefits of three very good sets of insurance specifications.
- No one involved with the cleaner’s association insurance program knew anything about the special insurance needs of restoration contractors. The cleaner’s association insurance program was originally designed for cleaners not restoration firms working under heavy-duty indemnity contracts with insurance companies. The insurance coverage promoted by the association works fine for cleaning firms. Somebody trying to help this restoration firm bent the underwriting rules years ago to fit this restoration firm into the association program. The key is someone not very well informed was trying to help the firm.
- The insurance agent was trying to provide responsive service to their customer and pushed out certificates of insurance as soon as they were requested without carefully comparing the insurance in force to the insurance requirements in the three contracts.