D&O vs General Liability: What’s the Difference?

General liability is built for operational third-party claims such as bodily injury or damage to someone else’s property. D&O instead concerns allegations against management for covered wrongful acts in their organizational roles. Hartford’s glossary defines these lines separately, and a business may need both because a customer injury suit and a shareholder governance claim present different risks. Compare the complaint’s allegations and named defendants with each policy’s insuring agreement. Do not expect general liability to substitute for D&O, or D&O to pay ordinary premises or product-injury claims; check exclusions and any umbrella attachment separately.

The distinction is the type of alleged harm and insured activity. General liability commonly addresses third-party bodily injury, property damage, and defined personal or advertising injury; D&O addresses management liability. A premises injury generally is not a governance claim, and a shareholder dispute is not bodily-injury coverage. D&O A/B/C grants do not broaden a general-liability insuring agreement, and general-liability exclusions may address professional or management conduct. Compare the allegations to each policy’s insuring agreement, exclusions, and limits. If an umbrella sits over general liability, confirm its schedule; do not assume it adds D&O limits unless the form expressly says so.