The Commercial General Liability (CGL) form and the BusinessAuto policy (BAP) contain complementary language when it comes to aclaim for injury or damage arising out of loading or unloadingproperty from a motor vehicle. This complementary language is foundin exclusions: The CGL form does not apply to claims arising out ofthe handling of property while it is being moved from anauto to the place where it is finally delivered; the BAP does notapply to claims resulting from the handling of propertyafter it is moved from the covered auto to the place whereit is finally delivered. So if one form excludes coverage, theother usually provides coverage. However, a dispute over which formapplies to a claim often starts when it is not clear when theproperty is “finally delivered.”

For example, the insured delivers a refrigerator to a customer'shome. The insured brings the refrigerator into the kitchen andpushes it into place against the wall a bit too hard, poking a holein the wall. Was the refrigerator finally delivered once theinsured brought it into the home? Or into the kitchen? Or placed itagainst the wall? As another example, the insured delivers andinstalls a washer/dryer but does not properly install an O-ring,causing water damage. Is the faulty installation part of the finaldelivery or was the washer/dryer finally delivered once it was inplace in the laundry room? Just what is the precise cutoff pointafter which unloading/final delivery ceases?

Read MoreFC&S Blog Posts at the Coverage Cafe!

There are at least two distinct doctrines that address theconfusion about when unloading has ceased: the complete-operationdoctrine and the coming-to-rest doctrine. According to some courts,under the complete-operations doctrine, unloading embraces all theoperations required in any specific situation to affect a completeddelivery of the goods. The coming-to-rest doctrine holds thatunloading ends when the goods have been removed from the vehicleand have first come to rest.

The majority of jurisdictions have adopted thecomplete-operations doctrine, holding that a proper commercialdelivery is part of unloading. And this makes sense since deliveryand set up are today common practices by stores selling appliances.Moreover, a reasonable interpretation of the language in the CGLform and the BAP actually supports this doctrine.

If the emphasis is put on the entire clause in the CGL formpertaining to unloading, a reasonable interpretation would be thatunloading applies only while the insured is actually removing theproperty from the auto. A look at the BAP language results in thesame reasonable conclusion.

In any case, the facts of each unique situation are going tomatter—and quite frankly, courts today are more readily focusing onthe desire to find coverage, no matter which doctrine is followed.But if the insured is going to have coverage regardless of whetherit is under the CGL form or the BAP, why is there a problem?

The problem, of course, arises if the insured has differentcarriers for General Liability and Business Auto coverage, with theresult that the insurers argue with each other over which oneshould cover the claim while the insured and the claimantimpatiently wait for a resolution. The solution: The insured couldavoid the problem by having the same insurer for both the CGL formand the BAP. Or insurers could fix the situation by clearlydefining when unloading ceases.