All I'm asking is for insurance brokers/agents to understand the difference in meaning between:
A.) with whom you agreed in a written contract
And
B.) who you agreed in a written contract
🅰️ ®️ ✝️ U
@CorvidCrone As a non-native english speaker, i am confused about B.)
Can that be grammatically correct? What would be the meaning? Or are you asking for differentiation in the sense of "B.) is wrong"?
@CorvidCrone It makes a bit more sense now, but should B.) not still have a "agreed _with_ " in there?
If the with can be omitted in that case too, that would be a new thing for me.
The most grammatically correct way to phrase it would be
"Any person or organization to whom you have agreed to provide additional insured coverage in a written contract."
However, that's a lot of legal responsibility weighing on that little "to".
90% of these documents state, and this is the whole text, nothing omitted:
"As per written contract"
That isn't even a full sentence. 😕
The best thing would be to take the covered entities out of the dative case, but that would bring the sentence down a reading level or two, and insurance companies love a complex sentence for this reason.
@CorvidCrone "We need to confuse these people or they will make too many claims!", haha.
The biggest problem is that they've been using that tactic for so long that the people who now occupy those jobs aren't familiar with sentence structure in such granular fashion.
(a) it's plainly obvious in context which contract is referred to
(b) the contract actually provides for this
but that also takes work to confirm each time and not assume
(but may also be safer than to restate and end up restating in different words or the precedents going out of sync)
"As per written contract" is the golden phrase that complies with whatever is in the contract. It's not a full sentence, but it is so much easier to adjudicate in court.
@admitsWrongIfProven ah, I've realized where your question comes from.
In this sentence structure, the verb "agreed" is pushed to an unnatural (to the native English speaker's ear) mid sentence position.
Any person who the named insured has agreed in a written contract to include as additional insured is an additional insured on this policy.
Additional Insured coverage is afforded to any person or organization who the named insured has agreed in a written contract.
Taking it out of insurance language:
The doctor, who is fantastic, said...
The doctor, to whom I owe money, said...
Yeah. Insurance documentation grammar is not stellar and it drives me nuts.
Sometimes the list of vague "entities" is an impressive trip through the thesaurus.
@admitsWrongIfProven
I omitted the subject of both sentences because insurance jargon is a sanity hazard for the average person.
The phrases describe who is included as an additional insured.
"Any person with whom" vs "any person who" have vastly different meanings.
Grammatical accuracy is extremely rare in the portions of insurance documents that agents fill in. And yet! The courts interpret insurance documentation as "plain language". So... it's a huge hairy mess