{"id":904007,"date":"2025-02-25T16:07:52","date_gmt":"2025-02-25T23:07:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=904007"},"modified":"2025-02-25T16:07:56","modified_gmt":"2025-02-25T23:07:56","slug":"construction-contract-insurance-policy-keep-an-eye-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/construction-contract-insurance-policy-keep-an-eye-out\/","title":{"rendered":"Keep an Eye Out on What Your Insurance Policy and Contract Says"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

David Adelstein | Florida Construction Legal Updates<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a very good reason<\/em> the contract requires the party providing a service (e.g<\/em>., subcontractor) to name the paying party (e.g<\/em>., general contractor) as an additional insured<\/strong> under its liability policies (e.g<\/em>., CGL policy) on a primary and non-contributory<\/strong> basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also a very good reason<\/em> why you, as an insured, should read the contracts you sign with the party providing a service for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, keep an eye out on what your insurance policy says and what your contract says! This is an ABSOLUTE!!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you want to know the good reasons, look no further to the recent case of Colony Insurance Co. v. Titan Restoration Construction, Inc<\/em>., 2025 WL 45160 (Fla. 4th<\/sup> DCA 2025).  In this case, a general contractor\u2019s CGL policy contained an endorsement that stated there would be no coverage UNLESS the general and subcontractor executed an agreement containing, \u201cA requirement for the [subcontractor] to name the insured [general contractor] as an additional insured under their Commercial General Liability policy on a primary and non-contributory basis in favor of the insured [general contractor]<\/strong>.\u201d Colony Insurance, supra<\/em>. The general contractor hired a roofing subcontractor. There was no requirement for the roofing subcontractor to name the general contractor as an additional insured on a primary and noncontributory basis. Also, the proposal the general contractor signed contained a disclaimer<\/strong> from the roofing subcontractor that the subcontractor \u201cwill not be held responsible for water damage to the exterior or the interior of the premises.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Naturally, the roof installed by the roofing subcontractor leaked causing water damage. The general contractor submitted a claim to its CGL insurer.  Its CGL insurer denied coverage because the subcontractor had NOT added the general contractor as an additional insured on a primary and noncontributory basis to its CGL policy. In other words, per the endorsement, there was no coverage because the general contractor did not comply by requiring its subcontractor to name it as an additional insured on a primary and noncontributory basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A coverage dispute between the general contractor and its CGL insurer ensued. On appeal, there are key points decided by the appellate court:<\/p>\n\n\n\n