{"id":884546,"date":"2015-10-28T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2015-10-28T17:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=884546"},"modified":"2015-10-28T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T17:27:00","slug":"oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/","title":{"rendered":"Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Kevin Mapes | Ball Janik | August 19, 2015<\/p>\n<p>On August 19, 2015, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., <\/em>reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-confirms-that-any-potentially-covered-loss-triggers-the-duty-to-defend\/\">duty to defend<\/a>, even when that duty is owed to an \u201cadditional insured.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Contracting parties rely on indemnity agreements and additional insured status to protect against liability arising from the other party\u2019s negligence. Insurers, however, frequently ignore or summarily deny tenders from parties who qualify as additional insureds under the policies they issued. That is exactly what happened in <em>West Hills<\/em>. A general contractor was sued for alleged <a href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/more-local-action-on-construction-defects\/\">construction defects<\/a> in a townhome project. The general contractor then tendered the defense of that lawsuit to a subcontractor\u2019s insurer as an additional insured under the subcontractor\u2019s insurance policy. The subcontractor\u2019s insurer denied coverage, and the general contractor, West Hills, sued the insurer, Oregon Automobile Insurance Company (\u201cOregon Auto\u201d), for breach of the duty to defend. The trial court agreed with West Hills, granting summary judgment in the contractor\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n<p>On appeal, Oregon Auto relied primarily on two arguments to justify its refusal to defend. First, the insurer argued that it could have no obligation to West Hills as an additional insured because the original construction defect did not identify its named insured, the subcontractor, by name. Noting the broad nature of the duty to defend under Oregon law, the Court of Appeals rejected that argument. \u201cTo trigger the duty to defend, a complaint needs only to make allegations with which a claim covered by the policy may be proven. The insurer is charged with the responsibility to recognize the insured\u2019s exposure that the complaint presents.\u201d The Court noted that the original complaint alleged damages arising from negligent supervision of subcontractors, and that Oregon Auto\u2019s insured was a subcontractor, holding that \u201c[i]t did not need to be identified in the complaint for the insurer to recognize its responsibility.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Second, Oregon Auto looked to the language of its policy to support its failure to defend. Again, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The insuring language provided West Hills with additional insured status, \u201cbut only with respect to liability arising out of [the named insured\u2019s] ongoing operations[.]\u201d Oregon Auto argued that West Hills could not be an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/insurer-duty-defend-additional-insured-construction-defect-case\/\">additional insured<\/a> unless there were allegations of property damage while its insured subcontractor was still on the job. West Hills, in contrast, argued that there was coverage as long as liability arises from the subcontractor\u2019s operations, even if the damage occurs later. The Court of Appeals declined to reach the reasonableness of the competing interpretations, finding it unnecessary.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>This case involves only the duty to defend, and enough is alleged to have triggered the duty to defend \u2013 without resolution of the construction of this additional insured endorsement. The original complaint pleaded the possibility of damage occurring even within the narrower coverage Oregon Auto understands. The original complaint would permit proof of damages before [the named insured] finished its work.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>For all policyholders, <em>West Hills<\/em> presents&#8230;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.thepolicyholderreport.com\/2015\/08\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThePolicyholderReport+%28The+Policyholder+Report%29\">To finish reading this article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kevin Mapes | Ball Janik | August 19, 2015 On August 19, 2015, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion in West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer\u2019s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an \u201cadditional insured.\u201d Contracting parties rely on indemnity&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[8884,19,57,320],"class_list":["post-884546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-defects","category-insurance-claims","tag-additional-insureds","tag-construction-defects-2","tag-duty-to-defend-2","tag-oregon","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer\u2019s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an additional insured\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer\u2019s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an additional insured\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-10-28T17:27:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-10-28T17:27:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/\"},\"wordCount\":524,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Additional Insureds\",\"construction defects\",\"duty to defend\",\"Oregon\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Defects\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/\",\"name\":\"Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-10-28T17:27:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer\u2019s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an additional insured\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer\u2019s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an additional insured","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer\u2019s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an additional insured","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2015-10-28T17:27:00+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d","datePublished":"2015-10-28T17:27:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/"},"wordCount":524,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Additional Insureds","construction defects","duty to defend","Oregon"],"articleSection":["Construction Defects","Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/","name":"Oregon\u2019s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to \u201cAdditional Insureds\u201d - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-10-28T17:27:00+00:00","description":"Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer\u2019s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an additional insured","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/oregons-broad-duty-to-defend-extends-to-additional-insureds\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3I6S","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/884546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=884546"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/884546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":884547,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/884546\/revisions\/884547"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=884546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=884546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=884546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}