Excess Liability Insurance for Commercial Roofing Contractors

Excess Following Form Coverage Structure

Excess liability policies sit above the commercial umbrella and provide additional limits for catastrophic losses. For large commercial roofing contractors, project owners and GCs may require total limits of $25M-$50M, requiring multiple layers of excess coverage above the primary umbrella. Each excess layer follows the terms of the immediately underlying policy, creating a seamless tower of coverage. Roofers pursuing large commercial, government, or institutional roofing projects — hospitals, airports, stadiums — need excess liability to meet contract requirements and protect against losses that can reach eight figures.

Excess Over Specific Underlying Policies

Some excess policies can be written to sit directly over a specific underlying policy rather than over an umbrella. This is useful when a roofing contractor needs higher limits on a particular coverage line — such as $10M excess over a $1M commercial auto policy — without purchasing a full umbrella. This targeted approach can be more cost-effective for contractors with specific high-limit requirements on one coverage line.

Aggregate Corridor Endorsement

This endorsement adds a self-insured corridor between the umbrella and the excess layer, reducing excess premium. The contractor absorbs the first $25,000-$100,000 of loss above the umbrella before the excess layer responds. For financially strong roofing companies, this corridor can reduce excess liability premiums by 15-25% while maintaining the high limits required by commercial contracts.

Multi-Year Policy Option

Some excess carriers offer two- or three-year policy terms, locking in pricing and terms for an extended period. This benefits roofing contractors working on multi-year commercial projects where consistent insurance terms are contractually required. A mid-project coverage change can trigger contract compliance issues and project delays.

Berkshire Hathaway (General Re / BHSI)

BHSI writes high-excess layers for large roofing contractors, typically attaching at $10M or above. Their capacity reaches $100M on a single risk, making them essential for contractors pursuing mega-projects. BHSI's underwriting requires exhaustive financial documentation, five-year loss histories, and safety program audits. Their pricing is competitive at high attachment points because the probability of loss reaching those levels is statistically low. BHSI's financial strength rating (A++) provides unmatched security for project owners requiring highly rated excess coverage.

Everest Re

Everest Re provides excess liability for mid-market roofing contractors, offering layers from $5M-$25M. They are willing to write lead excess positions directly over primary policies when no umbrella is in place — flexibility that benefits contractors building their insurance programs incrementally. Everest's pricing is mid-market, and their appetite for roofing contractors includes those with moderate loss histories who may not qualify for top-tier programs. Their claims handling is efficient for construction-related losses.

Chubb Excess

Chubb's excess casualty division writes excess layers for established roofing contractors with revenues exceeding $20M. Their policies provide the broadest coverage terms in the excess market, including excess coverage over professional liability and pollution liability — which many excess carriers exclude. Chubb's pricing is 15-25% above market average, but the comprehensive nature of their excess forms justifies the premium for contractors with complex risk profiles and demanding contract requirements.

Markel

Markel writes excess liability for small to mid-size roofing contractors through their surplus lines platform. They offer layers from $1M-$10M at competitive rates, filling the gap between the primary umbrella and the high-excess market. Markel's appetite includes newer roofing contractors and those with E&S primary placements, where standard excess carriers may decline to participate. Their policies follow the terms of the underlying policy without introducing new restrictions.

$8,500,000 — Multi-Worker Fall Accident, Houston, TX

During a commercial roof installation on a 10-story building, a section of temporary scaffolding collapsed, sending five roofing workers to the ground. Two workers died and three sustained permanent injuries. The workers' compensation claims were handled separately, but the third-party negligence lawsuits against the contractor, scaffolding supplier, and project owner totaled $8,500,000 in settlements. The contractor's $1M primary GL, $5M umbrella, and $5M excess policy all responded. The excess layer paid $2,500,000 after the primary and umbrella were exhausted. Without the excess layer, the contractor would have faced personal liability for $2.5M.

$4,200,000 — Building Collapse During Re-Roofing, Cleveland, OH

A roofing contractor overloaded a deteriorated warehouse roof with stacked materials during a re-roofing project, causing a partial structural collapse. The building housed a manufacturing operation that suffered $2.8M in equipment damage and $1.4M in business interruption losses. The primary GL paid $1M, the umbrella paid $2M, and the excess layer paid $1,200,000 to reach the total $4,200,000 settlement. The excess carrier subsequently required pre-project structural assessments for all re-roofing projects on buildings over 30 years old.

$6,800,000 — Highway Accident with Fatality, Phoenix, AZ

A roofing company's material delivery truck crossed the highway median and collided head-on with an oncoming vehicle, killing the other driver and seriously injuring two passengers. The truck driver was found to have been driving 14 hours straight in violation of federal hours-of-service regulations. The wrongful death and injury settlements totaled $6,800,000. The $1M commercial auto policy, $5M umbrella, and $5M excess layer all responded. The excess paid $800,000. The hours-of-service violation nearly triggered a policy exclusion, but the carrier ultimately honored the claim because the violation was not disclosed to the contractor's management.