The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015).

   Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired.

   After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 

   Selective first argued that there was no written contract between the parties under which Target was to be added as an additional insured. Selective submitted that the Program Agreement expired before the policy was in effect and before Brown's injury. The court rejected this agreement because the SQA, not the Purchase Agreement, required Harbor to name Target as an additional insured. There was no conflict between the two agreements. When the Program Agreement expired, Target was no longer obligated to purchase its fitting room requirements from Harbor, and Harbor was no longer obligated to provide them. The SQA remained in effect, however, and would be incorporated into any future agreements. It would continue to require Harbor to name Target as an additional insured. Therefore, the SQA satisfied the policy's requirement that Harbor's policy name Target as an additional insured.

   Next, Selective argued that the endorsement covered liability "for bodily injury caused in whole or in part by [Harbor's] product." Selective argued that because Brown claimed Target was negligent, her lawsuit did not assert liability "caused by" Harbor's "product." The court found, however, that Brown's allegations fell within the scope of the policy and her injury was caused by Harbor's product.

    Selective also argued a fitting room was not a "product." The court disagreed. The Merriam-Webster definition for "product" was "something that is made or grown or to be sold or used." Here, the fitting rooms made by Harbor, sold to Target, and used by Brown, fell within the definition. 

   Finally, upon review of the record, the court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support a reasonable anticipation of liability under Selective's policy.Therefore, Selective had to indemnify Target for the amount of the settlement.