On October 4, the Second Circuit held that a sub-subcontractor’s insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify an owner and general contractor after a construction accident. The court focused on the language of two separate additional insured endorsements in coming to its decision and ultimately interpreted the endorsements to require direct contractual privity with the named insured, which neither the owner nor the general contractor had. This ruling is problematic for upstream parties who seek additional insured coverage from subcontractors or other downstream parties with whom they did not have direct contract.
Click here to read the Case Alert.
Nov 07, 2017
Samantha M. Martino