A carrier is adding BP 04 71 Exclusion - Volunteer Workers to every business owners policy, even on BOPs for contractors. The agent doesn't understand why a carrier would want this exclusion on an entity with little to no volunteer exposure. 

In C. Who Is An Insured, the BOP includes:

Your "volunteer workers" only while performing duties related to the conduct of your business, or your "employees", other than either your "executive officers" (if you are an organization other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company) or your managers (if you are a limited liability company), but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you or while performing duties related to the conduct of your business.

The exclusion replaces that paragraph in C. Who Is An Insured with text that removes “volunteer workers":

Your "employees", other than either your "executive officers" (if you are an organization other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company) or your managers (if you are a limited liability company), but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you or while performing duties related to the conduct of your business.

Q: Does this exclusion take away coverage for the volunteer but keep coverage for the entity? If a claim is caused solely by a volunteer and the entity gets sued, does the entity have coverage? 

Response 1: BP 04 71 does not alter coverage for the named insured or for any other person or entity who or which qualifies as an insured. It simply removes coverage for “volunteer workers" as defined in the unendorsed coverage form:

"Volunteer worker" means a person who is not your "employee", and who donates his or her work and acts at the direction of and within the scope of duties determined by you, and is not paid a fee, salary or other compensation by you or anyone else for their work performed for you.

A claim against a named insured for actions by a volunteer worker would not be affected solely by the attachment of the BP 04 71. While labeled as an exclusion, the endorsement actually adds coverage for a claim brought by a volunteer against an employee of a named insured.

I can't think of any reason why the insurer has elected to attach the endorsement to a policy for a trade contractor, except that the endorsement may be on a list of required endorsements for all policies.

Response 2: The exclusion removes coverage for volunteers as insureds but would not remove coverage for the named insured entity. If the volunteer causes a bodily injury or property damage claim, the volunteer doesn't have coverage but the named insured does. 

Response 3: The carrier probably thinks it is easier to roll it onto every policy, rather than be selective. And what is the harm if the insured doesn't have volunteers anyway? 

Carriers are trying hard to limit their exposures for individuals who should have their own insurance, such as an individual or a family member who is insured on a homeowners policy. That avoids subrogation and coordination of coverage, both of which are more work for carriers.

This question was originally submitted by an agent through the Big “I" Virtual University's (VU) Ask an Expert service, with responses curated from multiple VU faculty members. Answers to other coverage questions are available on the VU website. If you need help accessing the website, request login information.

This article is intended for general informational purposes only, and any opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s). The article is provided “as is" with no warranties or representations of any kind, and any liability is disclaimed that is in any way connected to reliance on or use of the information contained therein. The article is not intended to constitute and should not be considered legal or other professional advice, nor shall it serve as a substitute for obtaining such advice. If specific expert advice is required or desired, the services of an appropriate, competent professional, such as an attorney or accountant, should be sought.