PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Additional Insured / Fourth Circuit: If You Want to Limit Additional Insured Coverage to Vicarious Liability, You Should Say So

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 WallIn 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 project in Washington, D.C. owned by 57 Bryant Street, NW LP and Bryant St., LLC (collectively “Bryant Street”). Bryan Street hired Capital City Real Estate, LLC (“Capital City”) as a general contractor to renovate an existing building. Capital City then hired Marquez Brick Work, Inc. (“Marquez”) as a subcontractor to renovate the building’s foundation and underpinning. The subcontract required Marquez both to indemnify Capital City for any damages caused by Marquez’s work as well as to obtain general liability insurance naming Capital City as an additional insured. Marquez accordingly took out a general liability policy from Lloyd’s that contained a standard additional insured endorsement (“Endorsement”) that insured Capital City but only with respect to liability for property damage caused in whole or in part by:

  1. [Marquez’s] acts or omissions; or
  2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [Marquez’s] behalf;

in the performance of [Marquez’s] ongoing operations for [Capital City].

In the midst of Marquez’s renovation work, a common wall between the building and an adjacent building collapsed. Capital City’s insurer sent a letter to Lloyd’s notifying them of the collapse and tendering to Lloyd’s “all claims” asserted as a result of the collapse. Lloyd’s never responded.

Three years later, Standard Fire Insurance Company (“Standard Fire”), the property insurer of the adjacent building, sued Capital City and Bryant Street for negligence. Standard Fire’s complaint did not name Marquez as a defendant, so Capital City brought Marquez into the lawsuit by filing a third-party complaint. This third-party complaint alleged that Marquez’s negligence caused the collapse and that Marquez was required to indemnify Capital City pursuant to the subcontract’s terms.

Lloyd’s denied coverage on Capital City’s claim asserting that the Endorsement covered only Capital City’s vicarious liability for Marquez’s acts or omissions. Because Standard Fire’s complaint did not allege Marquez’s negligence or that Capital City was liable based on Marquez’s negligence, Lloyds argued the damage caused by the collapsed wall was not covered.

Capital City filed a declaratory judgment against Lloyd’s in the District Court of Maryland, seeking a declaration from the court that Lloyd’s has a duty to defend Capital City under the Policy. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the district court ruled in favor of Lloyd’s. Capital City appealed.

The Fourth Circuit rejected Lloyds narrow interpretation of the endorsement. In particular, the court noted that “there is no mention of vicarious or derivative liability in the Endorsement,” and that “if the parties had intended coverage to be limited to vicarious liability, language clearly embodying that intention was available,” citing to and adopting the Tenth Circuit’s treatment of the issue in McIntosh v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 992 F.2d 251, 255 (10th Cir. 1993). The Fourth Circuit Court found that “the plain language of the Endorsement provides exactly what it says: coverage to Capital City for property damage caused by Marquez, either in whole or in part.” Consequently, Lloyd’s had agreed to insure Capital City for property damage caused in whole or in part by Marquez without regard to whether the underlying suit explicitly alleged Capital City’s vicarious liability for Marquez’s acts or omissions.

Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit Court vacated the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Lloyd’s and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Capital City.

Image source: Raphaël Thiémard (Wikimedia)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Cyberclaim Coverage Denied: The TCPA Protects Privacy, Not Personally Identifiable Information

Next Article »

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

About Whitney Fore

Related Articles

  1. New York’s High Court Holds Additional Insured Coverage Extends Only to Injuries Proximately Caused by Named Insured’s Fault
  2. 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)
  3. A Unilateral Scrivener’s Error Can Reflect a Mutual Mistake Requiring Policy Reformation (or, Don’t Expect $20 Million in Additional Coverage Without Paying Additional Premium)
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

  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • 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

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