A series of communications requiring the subcontractor to provide additional insured  coverage for the contractor were sufficient to fit within the policy's provision identifying additional insureds. KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. The Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 2014 Ariz. App. LEXIS 228 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014).

    KB, the general contractor, hired CRG Construction Co., Inc. in 1999 to perform work at a residential subdivision in Tucson. Charter Oak provided liability coverage for CRG, including additional insured coverage for any person or entity that CRG was obligated to cover under written contract or agreement. 

   CRG's written contract with KB provided that CRG would purchase and pay for public liability insurance. After the contract was signed, KB sent annual letters to CRG describing its insurance requirements. The letters detailed the minimum coverage mandated by KB and stated that KB must be named as an additional insured on CRG's general liability policy. 

    In May 2001, the City of Tucson asserted a claim against KB alleging deficiencies in streets and sidewalks within KB's residential subdivision project. KB sued CRG and other subcontractors for reimbursement for repair costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending against the City's claims. In February 2005, several homeowners in the project sued KB for damage to their homes allegedly resulting from construction defects. KB tendered its defense on both the City's and homewoners' claims to Charter Oak. Coverage was denied because KB was not an additional insured. There was no written contract or agreement requiring that CRG add KB as an additional insured.

   KB sued Charter Oak. Charter Oak moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court.

   On appeal, the court concluded that a reasonable fact-finder could find that KB had an "executed" written agreement with CRG requiring it to provide additional insured coverage. Although there was no specific document signed by both parties, written documents prepared by or at the direction of KB and CRG established such an agreement. KB's correspondence made clear the requirement that CRG add KB as an additional insured on its general liability policies and CRG carried out and completed the agreement by directing its agents to provide certificates of insurance listing KB as an additional insured.

   Accordingly, the summary judgment granted in favor of Charter Oak was reversed.