Navigation

Tag: additional insured


Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to DefendJan 13, 2017

A subcontractor’s insurer refused to defend a general contractor even though they were named additional insured on its CGL Policy. Where does the insurer’s duty to defend begin? Where does it end? Click here to read our latest Case Alert to find out how the Supreme Court of Oregon reaffirms its stance on what is an insurer’s duty to defend.

Read More »
Yours, Mine, and Ours: Florida Court Holds Wrap Exclusion Applies Equally to Named and Additional InsuredDec 07, 2016

Gregory Podolak (SDV Southeast Managing Partner) has a new article in Insurance Matters, the newsletter of the Florida Bar’s Insurance and Surety Committee: In today’s construction market, large-scale projects are commonly insured under consolidated insurance (“wrap-up”) programs, where the owner, general contractor, and most subcontractors are covered under the same primary and excess liability policies. This scheme functions as an alternative to traditional risk transfer, which relies on the individual…

Read More »
Policyholders Beware: Wrap Exclusions Will Be Broadly InterpretedOct 27, 2016

A Florida court recently denied a policyholder’s attempt to distinguish between a named insured and an additional insured in order to simultaneously obtain coverage and escape from an OCIP exclusion. This case presents a cautionary tale for additional insureds because absent some ambiguity within an insurance policy, a court will enforce the literal language of the policy. Click here to read the case alert.  

Read More »
Excess-Only “Other Insurance” Clauses in CaliforniaOct 13, 2016

SDV Partner Gregory Podolak recently published another Expert Commentary article for IRMI – Excess-Only “Other Insurance” Clauses in California. In the world of construction, parties rely heavily on additional insured endorsements as a means of risk transfer. Owners usually require their general contractors to obtain liability policies that include them as additional insureds, while general contractors require their subcontractors to do the same.  As a result, there are often multiple…

Read More »
Connecticut Additional Insured Privity Issue – UpdateAug 31, 2016

Following up last week’s blog post: on Monday, August 29th the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the decision in First Mercury Ins. Co. v. Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-01096 (D. Conn. Sept. 23, 2014) The district court held First Mercury Insurance had to defend the construction manager from negligence actions against them relating to a deadly construction accident at…

Read More »
Connecticut May Tackle Additional Insured Privity IssueAug 25, 2016

There is a split among states as to how to interpret the “contractual privity” language in endorsements. Connecticut has not yet addressed the issue. On August 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard the insurers’ appeal of the decision in First Mercury Ins. Co. v. Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-01096 (D. Conn. Sept. 23, 2014) (See our original Case Alert from 9/2014). The…

Read More »
Risk Management and Indemnity ConsiderationsAug 15, 2016

SDV’s Gregory Podolak and Brian Rice of RailWorks co-authored a new article for Under Construction: The Newsletter of the ABA Forum on Construction Law… The construction industry customarily relies on contractual indemnity and additional insured coverage to transfer risk between upstream parties (owners and prime contractors) to downstream parties (subcontractors and suppliers).  But the interplay between these two legally distinct avenues of risk transfer has become subtle and complex.  Today’s…

Read More »
Contractual Insurance Requirements and Anti-Indemnity StatutesJul 11, 2016

Gregory Podolak and Michael Barrese recently wrote an article for IRMI.com’s Expert Commentary site – Contractual Insurance Requirements and Anti-Indemnity Statutes… In the construction industry, contractual indemnity and additional insured coverage are widely regarded as separate but parallel risk transfer paths—each with their own nuances, advantages, and pitfalls. The two are ordinarily intended to complement each other. Where one is unavailable, the other may yet be. In many states, however,…

Read More »
Video Watch: Trade Contract Critical to AI CoverageJun 14, 2016

SDV Partner Gregory Podolak was recently interviewed as part of IRMI’s Construction Risk Management Thought Leader Videos. Find out how current versions of standard additional insured endorsements tie coverage to the construction contract, and learn the implications for upstream and downstream parties.

Read More »
Who Pays First? Manuscript Priority Language Enforced by NY CourtApr 08, 2016

This week, as part of IRMI’s Expert Commentary Series, Gregory D. Podolak and H. Scott Williams authored an article addressing recent insurance developments and the resulting impact on the construction risk transfer process. Using a recent case in New York, the article discusses the routine failings of horizontal exhaustion and how creative problem solving can better reflect the risk transfer intent. Click here to read the article…  

Read More »
The Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act Threatens to Dismantle Risk TransferMar 08, 2016

On February 24, 2016, in a ruling with grave implications to additional insured coverage and the risk transfer process, the Fifth Circuit in Tetra Techs., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co. overturned the Eastern District of Louisiana (see the Fifth Circuit’s opinion here), and broadened the application of the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act to void indemnity and additional insured coverage. Click here to read the entire Case Alert.  

Read More »
New Case Alert: Maryland Appellate Court Broadly Interprets Critical Additional Insured LanguageNov 16, 2015

An intermediate appeals court in Maryland recently joined the ranks of other jurisdictions in finding broad coverage available for additional insureds under standard policy language. This case is important: not only is it the first time a Maryland court has interpreted the 2004 version of the additional insured endorsement, but the holding also continues a trend of courts against limiting the endorsement’s “caused, in whole or in part” language to…

Read More »
Timely Notice Considerations for Additional InsuredsSep 29, 2015

Gregory D. Podolak and Brendan C. Holt were recently featured in the latest Expert Commentary section of the IRMI.com website. Tagged under “Additional Insured Issues”, the article starts: Finding coverage under an insurance policy often hinges on the appropriate application of very specific terms, for example, “you” and “your” and the party to whom these terms are intended to apply. If not read accurately, an additional insured could jeopardize coverage…

Read More »
New York Appellate Court Reinforces Broad Coverage for Additional InsuredsAug 24, 2015

In construction, subcontractors are often asked to obtain additional insured coverage for contractors who hire them. Worksite injuries are common, and in New York, injured parties sue frequently. That is why additional insured coverage is vitally important. Recently, an appellate court in New York issued a pro-policyholder decision which will be helpful to companies who seek additional insured coverage, primarily when the insurance policy uses certain specific language. Click here…

Read More »
Upcoming Webinar on the Impact of Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion Rules on Multiple Layers of CoverageAug 18, 2015

On Wednesday, September 9, SDV’s own David Jordan will be co-presenting a webinar for Strafford Publications that will discuss vertical vs. horizontal insurance coverage exhaustion in construction defect disputes. The program will analyze: the impact of exhaustion on allocation between the contractor’s primary and excess coverage the priority of payment between the contractor and its subcontractors the impact on additional insured coverage The program will also discuss best practices for…

Read More »