CG 20 10 11 85: Additional Insured, Owners, Lessees or Contractors (Form B), 1985 Edition

Why the 1985 edition is still written into contracts

The 11 85 edition amended Who Is An Insured to include the scheduled person or organization, but only with respect to liability arising out of "your work" for that insured by or for the named insured. "Your work" in the CGL form includes work in progress and finished work, so one endorsement gave the additional insured coverage during construction and after turnover.

The causation language mattered just as much. Many courts have read "arising out of" to require only a causal connection between the injury and the named insured's work, not fault. Some decisions extended coverage where the additional insured was the negligent party. For owners and general contractors, that pairing of completed operations and broad causation made 11 85 the high-water mark of additional insured protection.

Insurers responded. The 10 93 edition narrowed CG 20 10 to ongoing operations, later editions added completed operations exclusions, and the 07 04 editions moved to fault-based causation. Many contract templates were never updated, which is why "CG 20 10 11 85" still appears in exhibits drafted decades later.

How an 11 85 requirement plays out in a tender

If a subcontractor actually carries the 11 85 edition, or a carrier form that reproduces its wording, the tender question is broad: did the claim arise out of the subcontractor's work for you, during construction or after. The carrier will still apply the policy's other terms and exclusions, and the policy in force on the date of injury still controls.

The more common situation is a contract that requires 11 85 and a packet that contains CG 20 10 04 13 and CG 20 37 04 13. If the contract says "or equivalent", the subcontractor will argue the pair is equivalent. It is not identical: the modern pair is fault-based, excludes the additional insured's sole negligence and caps limits at the contract requirement. If you accepted the pair without objection for years, arguing breach of the insurance clause after a loss becomes harder.

Decide in advance which outcome you want. Either accept the modern pair as compliant and stop citing 11 85 alone, or keep 11 85 as a preferred standard and record each subcontractor's actual forms as an approved variance.

Edition comparison: 11 85 against the modern CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 pair

The differences are easiest to see side by side. The 11 85 edition has one schedule, one trigger ("arising out of" your work) and no time limit inside the endorsement. The modern pair splits coverage across two forms with two schedules, uses "caused, in whole or in part, by" as the trigger, adds "only to the extent permitted by law" and "not broader than" the contract, and limits what the carrier pays to the lesser of the contract requirement or the available limits.

• Ongoing operations: 11 85 yes; CG 20 10 04 13 yes.
• Completed operations: 11 85 yes, in the same form; the modern pair only if CG 20 37 is attached and renewed.
• Additional insured's sole negligence: 11 85 arguably yes under broad "arising out of" readings; the modern pair no.
• Limits for the additional insured: 11 85 the policy limits; the modern pair the lesser of the contract requirement or available limits.
• Paperwork: 11 85 one endorsement; the modern pair two endorsements, each with its own schedule to match.

Writing an or-equivalent clause that holds up

If your template still names 11 85, rewrite the clause around coverage outcomes. Require additional insured status for ongoing and completed operations on CG 20 10 11 85, or on CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 (04 13 or later) attached together, or on carrier forms providing coverage at least as broad. State the completed operations duration and the limits that apply to the additional insureds.

Some owners still negotiate 11 85 wording for high-hazard trades, or on controlled insurance programs where the sponsor selects the policy forms. Outside those programs, insisting on 11 85 alone usually makes every subcontractor noncompliant on day one, which trains project teams to ignore the insurance exhibit. A requirement that subcontractors can meet, enforced every time, protects more than an ideal requirement waived on every job.

How Pikorua Security handles 11 85 requirements

Pikorua Security lets you encode the equivalence decision once. In the contract rule builder, an 11 85 requirement can be set to accept the 11 85 edition outright, accept CG 20 10 plus CG 20 37 at 04 13 or later as an equivalent pair, or treat the pair as a variance that needs a risk manager's approval. The validator reads the edition stamp on each page, so a packet with CG 20 10 04 13 and no CG 20 37 is never mistaken for equivalent coverage.

Every variance is logged with the approver, date and reason, and stored with the verified packet in the tender defense vault. If a claim arrives years later, you can show exactly what the subcontractor carried and why it was accepted.