What is all the fuss about the ‘Accidental Trigger’?

  • Most Multimark type policies only provide cover when the Insured becomes liable as a result of an accident.
  • By contrast, the Camargue policy does not require that the Insured becomes liable as a result of an accident.
  • This is important in situations where the Insured incurs strict liability. In terms of strict liability, the Insured is liable even when the Insured was not at fault. For example the Insured is automatically liable for the actions of its employees (while they are acting in the course of their employment). So if an employee (e.g. a security guard) were to assault a visitor, the Insured would be liable even though there was no accident.
  • A less obvious (but very important) benefit is that the Camargue policy provides a wider trigger which is less likely to lead to a claims dispute:
    • In order for the MM policy to respond, the Insured has to establish that the third party loss occurred as a result of an accident. The word accident appears in the operative clause and means that the onus of proof lies with the Insured.

The Camargue General Liability policy responds where the Insured is legally liable. The cover is referred to as non-accidental. The word accident does not appear and means that if the Insurers wish to repudiate a claim based on the fact that an intentional act caused the loss, the onus of proof rests with them, rather than the Insured. This can be of great benefit to the Insured when submitting a claim. There can be many different legal interpretations of the word accident so avoiding such an operative clause is prudent.

Subject: 
General Liability