The court determined that the subcontractor’s insurer owed a defense to the additional insured general contractor in a bodily injury suit. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227712 (S.D. W. V. Nov. 19, 2025).

A.L.L. Construction, Inc. was the general contractor for a construction project. West Virginia Paving, Inc. was the subcontractor for paving work. After construction began, Charlottee Smith allegedly fell and was injured due to A.L.L. and West Virginia Paving’s negligent work. She sued both A.L.L. and West Virgina Paving. Smith and West Virginia Paving settled..

A.L.L., however, filed a third-party complaint against West Virginia Paving, seeking to require West Virginia Paving to defend and indemnify A.L.L. against Smith’s claims. Under the subcontract, West Virginia Paving agreed to maintain liability insurance for itself and A.L.L. West Virginia Paving purchased a policy from Liberty Mutual. The policy covered “any person or organization for whom” West Virginia Paving was “performing operations when the insured and such person or organization agreed . . . that such person or organization be added as an additional insured . . .” The policy only covered such entities “with respect to liability for . . . property damages caused, in whole or in part, by” West Virginia Paving’s work. The policy further provided that the insurance afforded to an additional insured would not be broader than that which the insured was required by contract to provide for the additional insured.

The subcontract required West Virginia Paving to provide coverage for liabiiity coverage for the indemnification clause in the subcontract. The indemnification clause required West Virginia Paving to indemnify and hold harmless A.L.L. from claims arising from any act or omission of West Virginia Paving with respect to the Subcontract Work.

A.L.L.’s insurer, Charter Oak, asked Liberty Mutual to indemnify A.L.L. from Smith’s claims and to pay for A.L.L.’s defense. Liberty Mutual ignored the request. Charter Oak sued, asking the court to declare that Liberty Mutula owed a duty to defend and indemnify A.L.L. under West Virginia Paving’s policy.

Under the plain meaning of the subcontract, West Virginia Paving had a duty to indemnify A.L.L. against Smith’s claims. Since the subcontract required West Virginia Paving to insure A.L.L. to the extent of its duty to indemnify, Liberty Mutual also had a duty to indemnify A.L.L. Further, the policy required Liberty Mutual to defend A.L.L. The court refused the dismiss Charter Oak’s action for failure to state a claim.