Harvey Nosowitz | Anderson & Kreiger LLP | April 24, 2018 Where a Lease Did Not Require the Additional Insured Coverage in the Lessee’s Policy To Be Primary, the Additional Insured Coverage Is Excess Over The Lessor’s Own Fronting Policy. Businesses frequently seek to shift the risk of liability by including in contracts a requirement… Continue reading Got Additional Insured Coverage? Not If You Don’t Say the Magic Word
Tag: Additional Insured
In Washington, Insurers Can’t “Unring The Bell” After Wrongful Denial Of Coverage
Kevin Mapes | The Policyholder Report | April 23, 2018 For the second time in two months, a federal court in Washington state has rejected an insurer’s attempt to avoid the consequences of its wrongful failure to defend its insured by effectively changing its mind and later—in this case much later—offering a defense. In Rushforth Construction Co.… Continue reading In Washington, Insurers Can’t “Unring The Bell” After Wrongful Denial Of Coverage
Compliance with Contractual Provisions to Procure Insurance: The Illusion of Coverage Provided by Certificates of Insurance
Micalann Pepe and Nate Meyer | Jaburg Wilik Commercial contracts often require the party with less bargaining power to procure insurance for the party with more bargaining power as a way to shift risk and potential liability. General Contractors often require a Subcontractor’s policy to name the General Contractor as an “Additional Insured.” Lenders often require a Borrower’s… Continue reading Compliance with Contractual Provisions to Procure Insurance: The Illusion of Coverage Provided by Certificates of Insurance
Unfortunate (and Unexpected) Restriction on Additional Insured Status
Stan Martin | Commonsense Construction Law LLC | March 28, 2018 The New York Court of Appeals, in a split decision, has focused on one word in deciding that a owner’s construction manager was not entitled to additional insured status on the general contractor’s policy. The contract required the GC to include the owner, DASNY,… Continue reading Unfortunate (and Unexpected) Restriction on Additional Insured Status
Are You Sure You’re an “Additional Insured”? The Second Circuit Says You May Not Be
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | March 6, 2018 In a previous blog post we discussed a New York trial court decision in which the court granted additional insured status to entities that did not contract with the named insured, but were referenced by category in the named insured’s subcontract. But before concluding you’ve got additional insurance,… Continue reading Are You Sure You’re an “Additional Insured”? The Second Circuit Says You May Not Be