Seamless Coverage

Many incidents result in allegations that trigger separate claims in both general liability (GL) and educators legal liability (ELL) policies, known as hybrid claims. If the policies are with separate insurance carriers, coverage disputes often arise as to which policy and carrier should respond to the claim, leaving the policyholder in the middle. When UE writes both the primary GL and ELL coverage, we add our unique endorsements, known as seamless coverage, to provide broader, coordinated coverage.

When you choose UE’s ELL and GL coverage, your benefits multiply through:

Coordinated claims management: Institutions get expertise, convenience, and efficiency when they place their confidence, and their claims, in UE’s coordinated ELL/GL claims management team. 

Financial savings: Many claims can trigger both policies. However, members pay only one retention—the lower retention between the two policies.

Peace of mind: UE’s coordination of coverage reduces gaps and eliminates the stress and uncertainty from apportioning coverage between different carriers.

ProResponse crisis response benefit: Expert guidance is available for any or all of five services: crisis communications, trauma/grief counseling, sexual misconduct investigation, e-discovery, and threat assessment.

Hybrid Coverage From UE Case Files

Educational claims are intricate and an institution may find that both its GL and ELL policies apply, as these examples show.

Copyright Infringement and Advertising Injury

An artist sued a college for using his work in promotional material about the school. He claimed that the school had contracted his work for limited use and sued the institution for copyright infringement, which triggered ELL coverage and, as an advertising injury, GL.

Disability Accommodation and Slander

A student with a disability complained that his professor discriminated against him by not accommodating his disability, thus causing him emotional distress. The student alleged that when he complained, the professor retaliated by giving him a failing grade and committed slander by posting information about him on his blog. He claimed that the professor’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and his civil rights. The claim was opened under the GL policy, which was triggered by the allegation of slander, with a lower deductible and retention.