GKLL Coverage Compared to CGL Coverage

Our insured is considering moving from one carrier to a new carrier. The insured is a radiator repair and windshield shop. Rather than keep garagekeepers direct primary coverage, the new carrier is proposing that the insured use the general liability policy and add endorsement CG 22 68. This endorsement is called “Operation of Customers Autos on Particular Premises”.

We see this endorsement as a liability endorsement that limits coverages for the customers' vehicles compared to the garagekeepers coverage. The underwriter feels the coverages are equal. What is your opinion?

Oregon Subscriber

CG 22 68 is going to provide liability coverage for the insured for the use or maintenance of a customer's auto. This is liability coverage in case a third party is injured or damaged through the use of the customer's vehicle. However, this endorsement does not provide GKLL direct primary coverage for the insured.

GKLL direct primary coverage provides coverage for the insured if he damages the customer's auto while servicing it. CG 22 68 is not going to provide coverage for the insured if he damages the customer's auto because of the care, custody, or control exclusion on the CGL form. CG 22 68 does not address this exclusion. So, if the insured is just interested in having liability coverage in case he injures someone while servicing or repairing a customer's car, then CG 22 68 is fine. But if the insured wants coverage for any damages he causes to (or is responsible for) the customer's car while it is in his care, custody, or control, GKLL coverage is needed.

If the underwriter thinks the coverages are equal, he is mistaken.