What a CGL policy is actually for

The confusion here is common and expensive. A commercial general liability policy covers a contractor's liability for accidents — the ladder that goes through a window, the worker who injures a resident, the fire started by a torch. It is not a warranty on the contractor's work.

In Ohio, under Custom Agri Systems, defective workmanship is not an “occurrence” at all. It is the contractor failing to deliver what it was paid for, which is a contract problem, not an insured fortuity.

So the certificate of insurance an Ohio board collects before a roof, siding or window project — the document most boards treat as the protection on the job — protects against the one category of loss least likely to occur and not at all against the one most likely. Our Ohio insurance requirements page covers what the association's own policies do and do not reach.

What actually protects the association

Retainage. Holding back a meaningful percentage until after a defined observation period is the single most effective protection available, because it requires no litigation and no insurer. On a siding or roof job, retainage that survives one full winter and one heavy rain season is worth more than any certificate.

A performance bond. On a large project, a bond from a surety obliges someone with money to complete or pay for the work if the contractor fails. It costs a small percentage of contract value and it is the mechanism that does what boards mistakenly think the CGL does.

A written warranty backed by something. A warranty from a contractor with no assets is a promise. A manufacturer's system warranty on the materials, or a warranty backed by a bond, is an asset. Ask what stands behind it.

Independent inspection during the work, not after. Water intrusion from bad siding is almost always visible at the flashing and weather-barrier stage and almost never visible afterwards. An engineer or consultant on site at the right moments costs a fraction of the eventual claim.

The related point on settlement and self-dealing

Two other Ohio decisions this period round out the contracting picture for boards.

In Thompson v. Cranberry Bay Homeowners Association, Inc., 2025-Ohio-1113, decided March 28, 2025, the Fifth District enforced an indemnity in a Dock Use and Indemnification License Agreement against the owners who had signed it. The clause reached “any and all loss, damage[,] or expense including attorney fees” and the court refused to narrow it: “the express language of the DUILA applies to any and all loss sustained, and not solely to CBHA's liability or lack thereof.” (¶ 35) An amenity licence is a fee-shifting agreement, and the court enforced it as one.

And in Talismanic Properties, L.L.C. v. Cedar Grove of Tipp City Homeowner's Association, Inc., 2026-Ohio-2004, decided May 29, 2026, the Second District affirmed Civ.R. 60(B) relief vacating a judgment on a promissory note, where the association showed “the invalidity of the promissory note, apparent self-dealing that resulted in the signing of the promissory note, and violations of Cedar Grove's bylaws.” (¶ 4) A successor board that discovers a prior board borrowed from an insider has a route, even after judgment and on the eve of collection.

The thread

All three cases are about the documents a board signs rather than the covenants it enforces. Ohio associations spend most of their governance attention on rules and most of their money on contracts, and the contract side is where this year's losses are.