None
FR
Banks Improperly Requesting Additional Insured Status – Part 2
['Christopher J. Boggs', 'Chris Boggs', 'Cpcu', 'Arm', 'Alcm', 'Lpcs', 'Aai', 'Apa', 'Cwca', 'Cris']
Insurance Journal
Several days ago I published an article entitled, “Banks Should NOT be Asking for Additional Insured Status.” In this article I argued that banks should NOT be requiring additional insured status on the borrower’s liability policy as a condition of the loan.
Having additional insured status helps address defense expense until the lender can get dismissed.
While I think this is a great point, unfortunately, this opinion does not offer valid reasoning for additional insured status.
Additional insured status should be limited to ONLY those parties with an ongoing business/contractual relationship with the named insured or those with a symbiotic relationship.
So far, no one has offered a viable reason a bank should be granted additional insured status as a requirement for a loan.
['requesting'
'bank'
'insureds'
'banks'
'contractual'
'policy'
'improperly'
'risk'
'additional'
'status'
'suit'
'relationship'
'insured']