If company does not use insured subs, all uninsured so rated in the payroll as employees.
Why does it matter if cg2294 and megl 0103 endts are on the policy? I understand these 2 endts pertain to subs only, correct?
As for the CGL endorsements, you're right. Those two endorsements are specific to subcontractors. The way you put it in your question, the insured is using uninsured subs, which is terrible risk management on their part, especially in light of these two endorsements.
CG 22 94 - removes the exception for work performed by subcontractors on your behalf from the Damage to Your Work exclusion. So if the uninsured sub does work that damages "your work", there is no coverage if a claim for BI or PD comes in related to that.
MEGL 01 03 - provides very specific requirements for providing any coverage for subcontractors and a small amount of coverage if those terms are violated.
Going back to the original question, if the insured is actually using subcontractors that don't have insurance, this protects the insurance company from paying certain claims related to the operations of the subcontractors. Since this insured has subcontractors that are uninsured, the company is limiting its liability by excluding coverage for subs related to Damage to Your Work, and by limiting coverage for ... "bodily injury" and "property damage" arising out of the "occurrence" ... involving the work performed by the contractor or subcontractor for or on behalf of the insured, to $50,000, no matter what limits the insured has.
This endorsement could create a potentially huge coverage gap for the insured since (according to how your question was put) the insured only uses uninsured subs. If the sub causes BI, PD, or P&AI arising out of the work done for the insured, the insured will only have a limited amount of coverage for that suit.