Care, Custody & Control

To The Editor:

Thanks to Bruce Hillman for his June 30 “FC&S Answer” column (see “To Care And Control–Or Not,” page 21). Someone finally got it right! I have argued the care-and-control coverage issue literally hundreds of times over the past 15 years on the over-2000 carpet cleaners and janitors that we insure. I have heard every lame argument in the book from insurers who simply don’t want to pay care, custody and control claims regardless of what the policy says. The long and short of it is (with respect to the 2001 and later forms):

Employees are not insureds with respect to personal property damage in the care, custody or control of the named insured, employees, partners or members. Therefore, if the employee is liable for damage, then the company doesn’t have to pay to indemnify the employee.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free
PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader.


  • All news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
  • Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
  • Other award-winning websites including and

Already have an account?



Join PropertyCasualty360

Don’t miss crucial news and insights you need to make informed decisions for your P&C insurance business. Join now!

  • Unlimited access to - your roadmap to thriving in a disrupted environment
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including, and
  • Exclusive discounts on PropertyCasualty360, National Underwriter, Claims and ALM events

Already have an account? Sign In Now
Join PropertyCasualty360

Copyright © 2023 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.