If a North Carolina professional house mover's $350,000 comprehensive general liability policy carries a rider excluding the act of moving a building, does the policy still satisfy the licensing requirements of G.S. 20-359.1?
Plain-English summary
W. F. Rosser, head of maintenance at NCDOT, asked the AG whether a house mover could satisfy G.S. 20-359.1's insurance requirements with a comprehensive general liability policy that carried a rider excluding "the movement of any building or structure by automobile or mobile equipment."
The 1983 AG answered no. The exclusion ran from the moment a structure was lifted off its old foundation to the moment unloading began at the new site. That is, from start to finish, the entire moving operation. A CGL policy that excluded the operation was hollow as applied to a professional house mover.
The AG rejected a counter-argument that the policy's reference to "Division One Automobile Coverage" (the $50,000 property-damage portion of the auto policy required by G.S. 20-359.1(a)(1)) absorbed the gap. The General Assembly had separately required $350,000 of CGL coverage in subsection (a)(2). Reading the exclusion to push everything down to the auto-policy's $50,000 floor would deny the public $300,000 of the protection the statute mandated, for precisely the most dangerous part of any house move.
The opinion concluded that NCDOT (the licensing authority) should refuse to issue or renew the house mover's license until the applicant produced unexcluded coverage. Proof of compliant insurance must precede licensure, not be assumed from a facially valid certificate.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1983. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The house-mover licensing scheme in Chapter 20 has been amended several times, and minimum insurance amounts have been updated to reflect inflation and risk experience. Commercial general liability policy forms have also evolved, and the specific rider language the 1983 opinion addressed is no longer the industry standard. A modern compliance question should be referred to NCDOT licensing staff and a commercial insurance specialist.
Historical context: what the AG concluded
The opinion is a clean piece of statutory enforcement reading.
It identified the legislative purpose. The reason a state requires CGL coverage for an inherently hazardous trade is to make sure third-party victims can collect on real-world harm. Excluding the central activity defeats that purpose.
It rejected the rider's read-through to the auto policy. The rider invited the reader to satisfy the gap through the auto policy. The AG declined. The two statutory subsections set separate minimums and serve separate functions; the auto policy covers vehicle-related harm with one set of limits, and the CGL covers operational harm with another, much higher set of limits. Allowing the auto floor to swallow the CGL ceiling would gut the statute.
It put licensing authority on a strict-compliance footing. NCDOT is the gatekeeper. The AG instructed that proof of compliant insurance must be a precondition of licensure, not a post-hoc verification.
It did not invalidate the insurance policy itself. The opinion only said the policy did not satisfy the licensing requirement. The carrier and the house mover remained free to contract around the exclusion; the failure was in the certification, not in the carrier's right to write the exclusion.
Background and statutory framework
G.S. 20-359.1 sits in Article 16 of Chapter 20 (the house-mover licensing article). Subsection (a)(1) required a motor vehicle insurance policy with $100,000 per-person bodily injury limits, $300,000 per-accident bodily injury limits, and $50,000 per-accident property damage limits. Subsection (a)(2) required a CGL policy with $350,000 combined single-limit coverage.
The two-tier structure reflects the dual nature of a professional house move. The vehicle-borne phase (hauling the structure down a public road) is covered by the auto policy. The operational phase (everything else, lifting, jacking, dolly placement, foundation work) is covered by the CGL. The CGL floor is much higher because the operational phase produces the most significant exposure: collapse, falling debris, road blockage, contact with utility lines.
The rider in question came from the standard GL 21 17 endorsement form, which carved out building-movement work from CGL coverage and steered the policyholder to add the coverage under the auto policy's umbrella. For most contractors that endorsement was unremarkable; for a professional house mover whose entire business is the carved-out activity, the endorsement left no operational coverage at all.
Common questions
Can a house mover satisfy G.S. 20-359.1 with multiple stacked policies?
The opinion does not address policy stacking. The statute requires the listed minimum coverages; whether those minimums can come from layered policies is not analyzed. Practical NCDOT review usually accepts compliant total coverage so long as exclusions do not leave gaps.
Is the carrier free to write the exclusion at all?
Yes. Carriers can write exclusions; the question is whether the resulting policy satisfies a statutory minimum. The 1983 opinion did not bar the carrier from issuing the exclusion; it barred NCDOT from accepting the excluded policy as compliant.
Does the exclusion also avoid coverage for the new foundation work?
The exclusion ran "from removal from old foundation to commencement of unloading." Foundation work at the new site may or may not fall within the exclusion's terminus, depending on facts. The opinion did not parse this question; it focused on the core movement period.
What if the structure was being moved within private property only (no public road use)?
The licensing statute is triggered by the trade of moving structures, not necessarily by public-road use. The opinion assumes public-road operations because the requesting officer was NCDOT's maintenance head. Private-property-only moves may raise different licensing questions.
What about umbrella policies?
The opinion does not analyze umbrella coverage. An umbrella policy that responds only after the underlying CGL is exhausted would not cure a gap in the underlying CGL; the underlying policy must itself meet the statutory minimum.
Source
- Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/insurance-comprehensive-general-liability-insurance-housemovers/
Citations
- N.C.G.S. § 20-359.1
- N.C.G.S. § 20-359.1(a)(1)
- N.C.G.S. § 20-359.1(a)(2)
Original opinion text
Requested By: W. F. Rosser, PE, Head of Maintenance, NCDOT
Question: Can liability for the movement of any building or structure by automobile or mobile equipment be excluded from the insurance coverage required to be furnished for licensure by a professional house mover pursuant to G.S. 20-359.1?
Conclusion: No.
G.S. 20-359.1 is set out in pertinent part as follows:
"§ 20-359.1 Insurance requirements.
(a) No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this Article unless the applicant presents to the Department a certificate or certificates of insurance, from an insurance company or companies licensed to do business in this State, providing:
(1) Motor vehicle insurance with minimum coverage of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident, three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident;
(2) Comprehensive general liability insurance with a minimum coverage of three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) combined single limit of liability; and"
This statute requires that no license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to Article 16 of Chapter 20 of the North Carolina General Statutes unless certain insurance requirements are met. Housemovers have been certifying to the Department of Transportation that they have met the insurance requirements of G.S. 20-359.1. However, while securing a general liability insurance policy in the amount of $350,000.00, the policy, by means of an attached rider, excluded from the coverage the movement of any building or structure by automobile or mobile equipment. The exact exclusion is set out in full as follows:
"This classification does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of and occurring during the course of the movement of any building or structure by automobile or mobile equipment, the period of movement being considered as commencing when such building or structure is removed from its old foundation and terminating when the unloading of the vehicle commences for the purpose of placing the building or structure on its new foundation. End. GL 21 17. If coverage for this hazard is desired, refer to Division One-Automobile."
It has been argued that the reference on the exclusion set out above to Division One Automobile Coverage in the amount of $50,000.00 as provided by G.S. 20-359.1(a)(1) covers the general liability provisions of this statute in the amount of $50,000.00. But this interpretation denies the expressed intent of the General Assembly in requiring $350,000.00 worth of comprehensive general liability insurance as is shown in G.S. 20-359.1(a)(2). If the above interpretation was accepted as expressing the intent of the General Assembly, the members of the general public would be denied $300,000.00 worth of protection for the most difficult and dangerous part of any housemoving operation which is of course moving the structure from the ground and placing it on the trailer or dolly and transporting it along state roads to the location where it is to be placed in permanent position by the housemover. It is obvious that such an exclusion would remove coverage that the General Assembly expressly intended to be provided; otherwise, there would be no reason for the enactment of the statute.
Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that an insurance policy issued to meet the requirements of G.S. 20-359.1 with a rider attached that excludes all liability arising out of the course of "the movement of any building or structure by automobile or other mobile equipment" fails to meet the insurance requirements of the statute and that no license should be issued until the proper insurance is obtained. Proof that the applicant has the necessary insurance prescribed by G.S. 20-359.1 should be required by the issuing authority prior to granting the license.
Rufus L. Edmisten
Attorney General
James E. Magner, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General