Scott Thomas | Payne & Fears Many businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as… Continue reading California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens
Category: Insurance Coverage
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds
Callie E. Waers | Florida Construction Law News The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the… Continue reading The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds
Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship
Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii The insured Developer survived a motion to dismiss by one of several carriers who were asked to defend against claims for faulty workmanship. East 111 Assoc. LLC v. RLI Ins. Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5331 (Oct. 4, 2019). Developers sponsored a residential condominium project… Continue reading Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship
It’s All About the Equities. Indemnity Provision Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion
Garret Murai | California Construction Blog In our last post, Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far, we discussed a case in which a project owner tried to use a contractual indemnity provision to require the principal of its contractor to defend and indemnify the project owner from the contractor’s… Continue reading It’s All About the Equities. Indemnity Provision Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion
Do Putative Class Members’ Claims Trigger the Duty to Defend?
Ryan Vanderford | Policyholder Pulse Must an insurer consider the possibility that putative class members (i.e., potential class members not named in the complaint) other than the proposed class representatives (i.e., the plaintiffs named in the complaint to represent the proposed class) have claims within the proscribed policy period in determining whether its duty to defend has… Continue reading Do Putative Class Members’ Claims Trigger the Duty to Defend?