The most common form used for product liability policies is the Claims-Made & Reported Form.  This type of policy requires the “claim” be made during the policy or the designated Extended Reporting Period (ERP) and reported in the same policy period of the policy currently in force.  On the policy declaration (summary) page it may state: “This is a Claims-Made Policy. This Policy only covers those Claims first made and reported against the insured during the Policy Period or “ERP”, if applicable.”

The second type of Claims-Made Policy form and least commonly used is the “Pure Claims-Made Form.  With this type of policy form the insured only needs to report the claim “as soon as practicable.”  This policy form provides more flexibility because the phrase “as soon as practicable” provides more flexibility and may allow claims to be turned in after the policy term.

What Is A Claim?

Hence the name Claims-Made, it is important to understand what constitutes a claim.  Is a claim a notice received by the insured to hold the insured responsible for bodily injury, property damage, advertising injury or personal injury or is it the formal service of lawsuit or institution of arbitration proceedings against the insured?  The answer could be both. I recommend that you examine the “Notice of Claim” reporting provisions of the policy or the “Definitions” section of your policy to understand what constitutes a claim by your insurance carrier.  Please note that a notice could be something as simple and informal as an email or a letter from the alleged injured party or it could be something as formal as being served with lawsuit papers.  This is why it is important you understand the definition of a claim within your policy.

The recommended simple rule for any insured with a claims-made policy is to always report any claim or potential circumstance that could lead to a claim for the insurance carrier.   All too often, when an insured fails to report a notice of claim, it is out of fear that the claim could have a negative impact on future premiums and, as a result, the insured waits, hoping that the notice never turns into a formal claim.  If the definition of a claim is notice (remember this could be a simple email) or threat to hold the insured for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury and you renew your insurance policy and fail to notify the insurance underwriter in the renewal application of knowledge of potential claim, this could be a reason for your the insurance carrier to deny a claim.  The insurance carrier could claim they would never have renewed the policy, if they had been aware of the potential claim or claims.

If you were to go out of business or the insurance carrier decides to non-renew or cancel the policy, it would be wise for you to purchase the Extended Reporting Period, particularly if you sell high hazard products.  ERP is a period of one, two or three years the insured can extend the reporting period of potential claims on their policy for an additional premium that is a contractually predetermined percentage of the premium of the last policy. In many claims-made policies the ERP for one year is 100%, two years is 150% and for three years it is 200% of the last premium paid.

3D printing or additive manufacturing, as it is also called, is a technology that will change society so profoundly it defies the imagination.  Think of a world where products being made no longer have go through the start-up steps or costs to be manufactured, where anyone with an imagination can bring a product to reality and manufacture 10 units to determine if there is a demand for the product. No molds or lathes required, just a computer and a 3D printer.  Inventors and start-ups will thrive, as never before seen in the history of man because making and trying new products will become less risky and expensive. 

For example, under today’s standards of manufacturing, to make a plastic part you need to create the mold.  To make a completed product several molds may need to be made before the product is ever completed and brought to market.  To offset the fixed costs required to make the molds, assemble and deliver the product to market, a product must be mass produced and sold by the thousands, thus creating the economies of scale.  With additive manufacturing or 3D printing, you pull up the blueprint on your computer screen, make the necessary changes to the shape and color and then press print.  A machine or 3D printer builds the product by progressively adding on material, one layer at a time.  No molds or factories are required. 

Today, most 3D printers are used primarily to build prototypes and then current manufacturing techniques such as molds and reduction machining are used to build the final products. Currently, only 20% of the output of 3D printers are used to build the final products.  However, by 2020 it is estimated final products produced by the 3D printers will grow to 50%.  In 50 years, it is possible that complete planes, trains and automobiles and anything else you can imagine will be made entirely from 3D printers.

The other great thing about 3D printing is it not just limited to consumer products. 3D printing has already progressed into the areas of human health.  In the future, it may be standard practice to print replacement parts for the human body from layers of human cells.  A company called Organovo apparently has already managed to make blood vessels and cardiac tissue via a printer that dispenses cells instead of ink. 

From an insurance point of view, there are going to be some monumental hurdles to be cleared.  How does a business protect it’s intellectual property rights, if anyone with a 3D printer can make an exact replica of their product almost immediately after it has hit the market?  Because products can be duplicated so quickly, will this cause businesses to push to get products to market quicker; therefore, forgoing valuable testing to make sure the products are safe for the consumers?  How will the patent offices keep up all the new products? And will a businesses want to submit their products to be patented because of the risk of notifying potential competitors to their new products?

 We requested a copy from the underwriter and were completely surprised to find out that this endorsement had the power to remove product liability insurance coverage if the following conditions were not met:

1. All sub-manufacturers and suppliers that supply any goods or products to you must have Product Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000.
2. You must have Certificates of Insurance from all sub-manufacturers and suppliers.
3. All sub-manufacturers and suppliers must name you as “Additional Insured” and must be evidences on the Certificates of Insurance provided to you.

 This endorsement goes on to state “ the insured (you) agrees that this insurance policy has been issued upon the above representations and warranties and that this insurance will not apply to claims arising out of work or operation performed by any sub-manufacturer and supplier unless all of the above conditions are met.

 If all of the above conditions are not met product liability insurance will not apply.

 The scary word in this endorsement is “all”.  A more reasonable phasing of this endorsement would be “endeavor to” meet the above conditions.

 If you have this endorsement in your policy, make sure you contact your insurance agent to have it removed or find another insurance policy that does not have this endorsement.

I get several calls a week from business start-ups, inventors, importers, patent holders, etc. that are trying to get product liability insurance for their product.  Many times I may be the sixth or seventh agent they have approached for a quote and they are getting frustrated because the premiums they receive are just too high and will not allow them to make a profit.

I feel your pain, but there is a simple explanation that many insurance agents, who do not sell product liability insurance on a regular basis, do not know how to verbalize.  It is not your product, but the class of business that is keeping you from getting the small premium. 

To make this easier for you to understand, think of the small business insurance as computers versus actual people.  Standard insurance carriers are the computers and the non-admitted or non-standard  insurance carriers are the actual people.

The business model for small business standard insurance carriers is to efficiently deliver quotes so they can hold costs down and deliver insurance inexpensively as possible. The Computers have the ability to generate thousands of quotes a day; whereas, an actual person (non-standard insurance carrier) may be only to generate 12 to 15 a day.  The standard small business underwriter is more of a manager that is assigned the responsibility to make sure your business fits neatly in the class of business the admitted insurance carrier has targeted. 

Another import point to understand about the small business insurance policies provided by a standard insurance carrier is the policies are very broad and meant to cover the entire business.  For example, if you are a small baby business that only sells art work for baby rooms and even though this product is not likely to ever be responsible for any type of bodily injury or property damage that could lead to a lawsuit, chances are a standard insurance carrier will not provide coverage for your business.  The reason is simple.  Their policy is so broad that if you later decided to start selling baby cribs your policy would provide product liability for the cribs also, even though the intent of the insurance carrier was to only provide coverage for baby art. 

I know you are wondering why doesn’t the underwriter simply put on the policy that only the baby art is covered under the policy?  Well, think about it. The business model is efficiency and low price. If the underwriter has to stop and write a special endorsement to only cover baby art, then they are not available to process the other quotes generated by the computer.

So if you sell a product or product within the sporting goods, health supplement, construction, energy, exercise, child, disabled, medical or elderly category, remember, it is not your specific product that is causing you to pay a higher minimum premium, but the class of business.

The Excess/Surplus or non-standard insurance market exists for the specific purpose of covering risks that do not fit neatly into the standard or admitted insurance market and have the ability to tailor a policy for your specific products and business needs.

Why this is extraordinary is because in the past, manufacturers have used additional insured vendors endorsements as a way to entice retailers and wholesalers to sell their products.  By being additional insured on the manufacturer’s product liability policy, the retailers and wholesalers were reassured that they were protected in the event they were shotgunned into a products liability lawsuit for a manufacturing defect of the product.

This reversal by the manufacturers is due, in my opinion, to two different factors. The first reason may be because more manufacturers are using high self-insured retentions and loss-sensitive rating plans to save money on product liability insurance premiums. When using these methods to reduce their premium costs, manufacturers are likely to be required to come out of pocket for a large portion of the defense costs.  By eliminating clients as Additional Insureds, the defense costs would have to be covered by their client’s product liability insurance policy, thus, saving them a significant amount of money.

The second reason manufacturers may be reluctant to name their clients as Additional Insured is the manufacturers are not always the designer of the products they are manufacturing.  There are 3 legal theories of recovery in a product liability lawsuit – 1) Manufacturer Defect, 2) Design Defect and 3) Instruction and Warning Defect.  When a manufacturer names a client as Additional Insured on their product liability policy, the manufacturer’s policy is primary to their clients product liability policies and the manufacturer’s policy would have to respond to all product liability lawsuits, even if the reason for the lawsuits were for Design or Instruction and Warning defect.  When manufacturers are contracted to build products designed by others, they are not responsible for the design or instructions and warnings of the products and, therefore; do not feel it is their responsibility to cover these types of claims on a primary basis.  This type of manufacturer is often called a third party manufacturer because they are simply building products based on the specifications provided to them by other parties.

Since these third party manufacturers are not responsible for the design or the warning labels or instructions, we are seeing many of these third party manufacturers asking their clients and vendors to name them as Additional Insured on their policy.  The logic the third party manufacturers use to justify this request is that since they are making products to the specifications of their clients and not responsible for warning labels or instructions, they should be covered on the clients Product Liability policy. This is a very convincing argument and not without merit.

What is odd about this dilemma is there is not overt Indemnification agreement or contract that simply declares that the third party manufacturer is responsible for manufacturing defect and the designer of the product, which is more often than not, also, the seller, be responsible for design and instructions and warning defect claims.

If anybody is aware of such an indemnification agreement, please email or fax me a copy.  We would love to be able to recommend this to our clients as a simple way of resolving this troubling issue.

 Statute of Limitations laws place a time limit on how long an injured party has to file a product liability lawsuit, after the time of the injury.  After the time limit has expired, an injured party loses the right to file a product liability lawsuit, unless a legal exception applies. For most states, a product liability claim must be filed within 2 to 4 years, after the injury.

 While the Statute of Limitations appears to have less variability from state to state than Joint And Several Liability and Statute of Repose, the real variability lies primarily with the legal exceptions.  When legal exceptions exist, it allows the Statute of Limitations to stop running. Typical legal exceptions are when a victim was a minor or mentally incompetent at the time of the injury or the defendant is in bankruptcy.  For example, in the state of New York, a minor has 3 years after their 18^th Birthday to file a product liability lawsuit. 

Claims-Made Policies and Children’s Products

Because most states allow, at least, until the eighteenth birthday of a victim to bring a product liability lawsuit, claims-made policies are not a good fit for businesses that manufacture, import or distribute children’s products. 

To state it as simply as possible, once a claims-made policy is cancelled or non-renewed, there is no product liability coverage for any prior injuries or incidences involving your products.  To have a claim covered by a claims-made policy two things must exist – you must have the injury and the claim during the policy period.  In other words, you must keep renewing your claims-made policy or, if you switch policies, you must have the new insurance carrier to endorse your new policy to include the retro-date (original effective date of our first claims-made policy) of your first insurance policy.

The other issue for children’s businesses is the large retailers of children’s products are all too aware of the legal exception for minors that stop the statute of limitations from running.  As a result, most of the large retailers will require providers of children’s products to have an occurrence-based policy.  Unlike a claims-made policy, an occurrence-based policy only requires an incident or injury to provide coverage.  So all prior incidences or injuries to the cancellation or non-renewal of an occurrence-based policy would still be covered by the insurance company.

In summary, while it is tempting to purchase a claims-made policy because premiums can be 30 to 40% less than an occurrence-based policy, most of the major retailers are aware of the legal exception for minors and, as a result, will contractually require their vendors to have an occurrence-based policy in order to do business.  Also, from a pure risk management point of view, the owners, principles and stockholders of a children’s business should be able to sleep better at night knowing the occurrence-based policy will still provide product liability coverage for incidinces or injuries prior to the policy being cancelled or non-renewed.

We know from my previous blog, “Why Naming Multiple Defendants In A Lawsuit Is Common Practice”, that it is typical for the plaintiff’s attorney to name as many defendants as possible, when there is a product liability lawsuit.   However, what may surprise you is that even if you have only marginal ties to the product that is responsible for the product liability lawsuit you could potentially be responsible for paying the lions share of the damages or even paying all of it. 

How can this be? This is not fare! What kind of law would allow this to happen?

Joint and Several Liability was created to make sure the injured party or plaintiff was able to be made whole, even if one or more of the defendants are unable pay their share of the product liability monetary damages.  Many of the critics of Joint and Several Liability refer to this approach as the “deep pocket” rule because of the potential of a product liability lawsuit becoming a search for the “deepest pockets”.

Over time tort reform efforts have led to many states limiting the applicability of pure joint and several liability.  Currently states are using one of the following three approaches when distributing financial liability of defendants:

1. Pure Joint/Several Liability – Each defendant in a product liability lawsuit is responsible for the entire amount of the damages, regardless of amount responsibility or liability each defendant had.  Currently, 16% of states use Pure Joint and Several Liability, including my fine state, South Carolina.
2. Pure Several Liability – Each defandent is only liable for their assigned portion of the damages, based on their percentage of responsibility or liability.  For example, manufacture and designer of a faulty product would have a higher percentage of responsibility or liability than the retail distributor of the product.  Currently, 28% of the states use Pure Several Liability.
3. Modified Joint/Several Liability – This is somewhere between Pure Joint/Several Liability and Pure Several Liability and can vary greatly state to state.  Currently, 56% of the states use Modified Joint and Several Liability.

Overall, the point of this blog is that life is not fare and if you are a business that distributes products in all or most of the 50 states, the amount of monetary damages your business may be responsible for paying could largely depend on the state in which the product liability case is being tried. 

If you want to know which states use Pure Joint and Several Liability, Pure Several Liability or the Modified Joint and Several Liability, simply click on this chart.

Keep in mind that recalls are simply not for defective products that do not work as intended.  To implement a product recall there must be some evidence that the product presents an imminent danger to cause bodily injury or property damage.

The following items may surprise you to be on the product recall list:

• Denture cream
• Foot Warmer
• Car Floor Mats
• Coffee Mugs
• Office Chairs
• Candle Holders
• Women’s Robes
• DVD Players
• Flashlights
• Women’s Shoes
• Indoor Light Fixtures
• Key Chains
• Computer Batteries
• Entertainment Stands
• Window Blinds

The point I am trying to make is that all of the manufacturers, importers or distributors of these products could not have anticipated the type of problems they are currently experiencing. 

So the next time you feel like paying for product liability insurance is a rip off, I recommend you go to www.recalls.gov and look at all the products being recalled and ask yourself if your business could survive without product liability or product recall insurance, if one of your products ended up on the list.

 In the article, I stated that because insurance carriers viewed nanotechnology as potentially the next “asbestos” it would be difficult to insure and that nanotechnology business development would probably be forced to ‘creep at a snails pace”.

It turns out that, maybe, I was wrong. According to Lux Research, a consultant on emerging technologies, Nanotechnology business is expected to increase thirty fold.  It is expected to increase from $100 billion in 2007 to $2.6 trillion in 2014.  It is thought that, as much as 15% of all manufactured products will rely on some type of nanotechnology by 2014.

The interesting part of the from a product liability insurance point of view is how many insurance carriers are going to line up to provide product liability policies for nanotechnology businesses.  Ultimately, larger companies, such as DuPont and 3M, could either self-insure or bring enough premium to the table to attract some insurance carriers to provide product liability coverage.  However, with some claims already being filed with some sunscreen companies that use nano particles in their products, it is my opinion that most of the insurance carriers are going to wait before jumping in to provide product liability coverage for the new emerging nanotech products.  The insurance carriers are going to want a proven track record of no claims before making product liability insurance policies available to small and medium size companies.

The insurance companies’ primary concern is that since nanotech particles can be smaller than a virus and can easily penetrate or be absorbed by human tissue, they may be handling severity related claims such as cancer, similar to the thousands of past and pending asbestos claims.

One thing that is a sure thing – product liability trial lawyers are already having seminars in far away exotic locations and are preparing their strategies on how to hit a home run similar to the home run hit with asbestos.

I wanted to expand on this because so many of the businesses that contact us have never been through a lawsuit and do not have any concept of how extremely expensive it is to comply with discovery in today’s electronic and technological world.

Often overlooked in today’s modern world is the fact that plaintiff attornies have spent the last 20 years perfecting the art of electronic discovery and how to use it against the defendents as a way of making them spend money. 

Did you know that defendents are required to preserve every email? If the emails are in an old system, defendents are required to search out and discover emails in old systems that are no longer supported and make this information available to the plaintiffs in whatever format they want to read it.  Not only is it expensive to ferret out the emails, but what if the emails contain sensitive materials that are protected by HIPPA privacy laws?  The cost to comply goes up.

I think you get the picture.  Even if you have no liability in the lawsuit, our liberal discovery rules in the U.S. allow the plaintiff’s attorney to force you to spend a great deal of money to comply with discovery.  The higher the costs to you the greater the asking price by the plaintiff’s attorney to reach a settlement.