PropertyCasualtyFocus

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

Additional Insured

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 »

Insurance is Big in Texas: In Deepwater Horizon Case, Texas Stretches a Policy’s Four Corners to Include Other Contracts

March 4, 2015 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Picture of Deepwater Horizon, an offshore drilling unit

Last month, in In re Deepwater Horizon, Relator, the Supreme Court of Texas applied a fundamental principle of insurance law to a case with enormous financial implications.  The owner of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig had made BP an additional insured under its liability policies, but it did so pursuant to a drilling contract in which BP had agreed to be responsible for some of the losses those policies covered.  When BP submitted a claim, therefore, a court had to ... Keep Reading »

Like Hats and Belt Buckles, Indemnity Agreements in Texas Must be CONSPICUOUS

December 18, 2014 by John C. Pitblado

Picture of Peacock

It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety. –Isaac Asimov Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Texas law allows an indemnity agreement to insulate a party from the consequences of its own, allegedly negligent conduct, but only if that feature of the agreement is disclosed conspicuously.  In Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc. v. Kellogg Brown  & Root, Inc., No. 13-3027 (10th Cir. Dec. 9, ... Keep Reading »

Carhops and Cash Deposit Bags: Insurer Skates From the “Dual Purpose” Doctrine

December 11, 2014 by Kyle Whitehead

Picture of an old Drive-In Restaurant

For many, Sonic Drive-In restaurants stir thoughts of  juicy burgers, neon-blue sodas, ‘50s rock ‘n’ roll, and roller-skating carhops.  Recently, however, in Hudson Specialty Insurance Company v. Brash Tygr, LLC, Nos. 13-1688, 13-1742 (8th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals served up an opinion in a commercial insurance coverage dispute with a little less flavor and fanfare, in analyzing the proper application of the "dual purpose" doctrine in the ... Keep Reading »

Apartment Complexity: Appellate Court Sorts Out Multiple Coverage Claims for Construction of Uninhabitable Residence

November 25, 2014 by Meredith Whigham Caiafa

Picture of a Haunted House

In QBE Ins. Corp. v. Adjo Contracting Corp. (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't Oct. 29, 2014), an intermediate appellate court in New York confronted cross-appeals involving 15 different insurers embroiled in multiple lawsuits, including consolidated class actions.  The core issue of the case was whether the insurers for a variety of subcontractors were obligated to provide a defense to tenants' lawsuits against the developer and general contractor of a doomed residential ... Keep Reading »

“Mend the Hold”: A Nineteenth-Century Wrestling Doctrine Keeps its Grip on Coverage Litigation in the WWE Era

July 31, 2014 by Brendan Gooley

Picture of U.S. Army Wrestlers

The issue confronting an Illinois appellate court in BNSF Railway Company v. Probuild North LLC, No. 1-12-3648 (Ill. App. Ct.  June 11, 2014), was not uncommon.  The plaintiff sought coverage from its insurer under a commercial general liability policy.  In defending the suit, the insurer asserted a different defense from the one it had identified in its original denial letter.  The plaintiff argued that the insurer was estopped from changing its rationale for denying ... Keep Reading »

It’s All About the Pleadings: Florida Court Expands Insurers’ Obligation to Provide Separate Counsel for Insured Co-Defendants

April 25, 2013 by John W. Herrington and Robert D. Helfand

The duty of a liability insurer to provide a defense for its insured is controlled by the contents of the pleading against that insured: the duty can arise on the basis of allegations that establish grounds for coverage, even if the insurer knows those allegations to be false. If, in those circumstances, the insurer reserves its right to dispute coverage (and especially if, in doing so, it relies on a theory that would prejudice the insured’s position in the underlying ... Keep Reading »

As Gunfire Thins the Ranks of the Employed, Employee Exclusions Hold the Line Against Coverage

March 28, 2013 by John W. Herrington

As this blog has previously reported, accidents with guns are not likely to become less common any time soon.  With home- and business-owners striving to find increasingly original ways to get shot, they will put increasing strain on the traditional language of the coverage exclusions in insurance policies.  In Gear Automotive v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 12-2446 (8th Cir. Mar. 18, 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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!

Send Me 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

  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law
  • Texas Appeals Court Finds Project Owner Excluded From Coverage as Claimants’ Statutory Employer

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
© 2014–2025 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. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing