PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Additional Insured

Additional Insured

Florida Court Holds Carrier’s Basis for Botched $149K Ferrari Payment Defied “Common Sense”

February 17, 2020 by Matthew Lewis

A familiar dispute between a carrier and a third party involves the third party’s attacking the language of the insurance contract and arguing in favor of an interpretation not reflected by the plain meaning of the text. But in a recent opinion by a Florida appellate court, World Finance Group LLC v. Progressive Select Insurance Co., it was the third-party lienholder that benefitted from the “plain meaning” of the text. This case stemmed from a March 2014 accident ... Keep Reading »

New York’s Highest Court Holds Untimely Disclosure Is Not an Untimely Disclaimer

August 9, 2019 by Nora Valenza-Frost

Construction Workers Disagreement

The defendant, Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group LLC (PCIC), is a risk retention group charted in Montana and doing business in New York. PCIC issued a CGL policy naming defendant Nadkos Inc. as an additional insured for liability related to the ongoing operations of the subcontractor and other members of the risk retention group. PCIC disclaimed coverage for Nadkos for an underlying personal injury action by an employee of Nadkos' ... Keep Reading »

EDNY “Teas” It Up On Additional Insured, Finds Insurer May Withdraw Defense and Recoup Defense Costs

June 14, 2019 by Alex Silverman

Construction Workers Drinking Tea

Given the broad duty to defend rules in most jurisdictions, liability insurers often find that they must — or perhaps should out of an abundance of caution — defend an insured against a claim that in all likelihood will not implicate the duty to indemnify, such as when extrinsic evidence strongly suggests that an exclusion will apply. In these situations, insurers in many states are permitted to offer a defense under a reservation of rights to withdraw and seek ... Keep Reading »

New York’s High Court Holds Additional Insured Coverage Extends Only to Injuries Proximately Caused by Named Insured’s Fault

July 21, 2017 by Gabriella Paglieri

Subway MTA Excavation

On June 6, the New York Court of Appeals in Burlington Insurance Co. v. NYC Transit Authority held that where liability is limited to injuries “caused, in whole or in part” by the named insured’s “acts or omissions,” coverage extends only to those injuries proximately caused by, not just causally linked to, the named insured’s actions or omissions. The 4-2 decision reversed the intermediate appellate court’s (Appellate Division, First Department) holding that under such ... Keep Reading »

Tenth Circuit Drills Down Into Roots Of Moral Hazard, Comes Up Dry

July 29, 2016 by John W. Herrington

'Fess Up... Don't pass the buck!

Moral hazard (one of this blog’s preoccupations) usually comes up in disputes over the scope of coverage under an insurance policy.  (See, for example, here, here  and here.)  But state legislatures often address it, too—for example, by imposing limits on agreements to indemnify a party against the consequences of its own negligence.  This week, in Lexington Ins. Co. v. Precision Drilling Co., No. 15-8036 (10th Cir. July 26, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth ... Keep Reading »

Additional Insureds Deserve Attention Too: New York Court Finds Insurer’s Reservation of Rights to Named Insured Did Not Constitute Notice to Additional Insured Under § 3420(d)(2)

November 5, 2015 by Nora Valenza-Frost

Liability insurers issuing or delivering policies in New York are well apprised of the statutory requirement that the insured is to be provided written notice of a disclaimer or denial of a bodily injury or death claim “as soon as is reasonably possible.” N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420(d)(2). Also well-known is that an insurer may face severe consequences from delaying issuance of a disclaimer on a ground that is known to be valid, while still investigating other possible grounds ... Keep Reading »

Keeping it Basic: NJ Supreme Court Limits Amount Owed to Innocent Third Parties

September 17, 2015 by Whitney Fore

Picture of a Broken Car Headlight

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that an automobile insurer must pay an innocent third party the contracted $10,000 amount of basic coverage following an auto accident involving the insured's vehicle, despite that the policy was procured by fraud and rescinded.  Luckily for the insurer, the Court held that the insurer was only responsible for the amount of coverage provided by the rescinded policy, which was $5,000 less than the $15,000 per person/$30,000 per ... Keep Reading »

Conflict Resolution: Illinois Appellate Court Finds No Conflict in Defending Two Insureds, and No Duty of Primary to Excess Insurer to Settle Case

September 10, 2015 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

Picture of the 72nd Street Station Subway

When an insurer defends its insured under a liability policy, the insurer has a duty to act in good faith to the insured in responding to settlement offers. In Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1-14-0928 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2015), the Illinois Court of Appeals determined that, where a primary insurer and excess insurer provide coverage to a common insured, the primary does not owe the same duty to the excess – at least where the ... Keep Reading »

Who’s the Boss? In Policies Covering Multiple Insureds, the Details Matter

July 27, 2015 by Jonathan Sterling

Liability policies for businesses are subject to a number of common exclusions; many, for example, do not cover liability to employees of the business who are injured on the job.  Frequently, those policies do provide coverage to additional insured parties, such as lenders or property owners, that deal with the business.  Recently, in Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Politsopoulos, No. 60 MAP 2014 (Penn. May 26, 2015), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question ... Keep Reading »

Fourth Circuit: If You Want to Limit Additional Insured Coverage to Vicarious Liability, You Should Say So

July 20, 2015 by Whitney Fore

Picture of the Berlin Wall

In Capital City Real Estate, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 14-1239 (4th Cir. June 10, 2015), the Fourth Circuit Court ruled that a Maryland federal court erred in granting summary judgment to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (“Lloyd's") in a coverage dispute between it and its insured, a construction contractor, by misinterpreting the “additional insured" endorsement in the policy issued by Lloyds. The lawsuit arose out of a construction ... Keep Reading »

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Beware the Honest Hacker: Indiana Supreme Court Finds That Bitcoin Payment Is Not Necessarily Covered Loss Under Commercial Crime Policy Because Not Every Ransomware Attack Involves Fraud
  • Arizona Supreme Court Finds That Reasonableness of Insurer’s Refusal to Consent to Settlement Under D&O Policy Is in the Eye of the Insurer
  • Gluing Feathers to a Phone Does Not Make a Turkey: Seventh Circuit Finds Mere “Negligence” Label and “Stitched Together” Factual Allegations Do Not Trigger Duty to Defend Aggressive Robocall Lawsuit Under Illinois Law

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.