CCC Not As Easy As ABC

To The Editor:

I know this subject has been addressed to the point of ad nauseam, but your June 30 “FC&S Answer” column (“To Care And Control–Or Not,” page 21) seems to miss an important point about the care, custody and control exclusion j.(4) in the CGL with respect to “the insured” and “you” or “your.”

If property in the CCC of an employee, regardless of their insured status, doesn’t serve to create a CCC exposure for the named insured via the “master-servant rule,” how would a corporate entity, for example, ever be legally liable for damage to property in their employees’ CCC, since the corporate entity can only exercise control through the actions of it employees?

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.