The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the contractor’s insurer finding that the sumcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend the contractor. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. TBR Construction, LLC, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2177 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025).

Greenscape Homes, LLC was the general contractor for a residential development. Greenscape hired TBR Construction, LLC as a carpentry-framing subcontractor pursuant to a “Trade Contractor Agreement.” The Trade Agreement required TBR to name Greenscape as an additional insured. TBR was insured by Utica. Greenscape was insured by Navigators.

Angel Hernandez, a tradesman employed by TBR, was injured when a wooden truss fell on him while he was working at the construction site. Navigators informed TBR that Hernandez had retained counsel but had not yet filed suit. Navigators requested that TBR confirm its obligaiton to defend and indemnify Greenscape as an additional insured under the Utica policy. TBR was asked to refer the matter to Utica. A year later, Navigators sent a second letter to TBR again requesting defense and indemnity coverage for Greenscape.

Utica declined Navigators’ tender on the grounds that the Utica policy excluded coverage for the “independent acts or omissions” of an additional insured. The letter added, “[t]here is no indemnification or defense owed as there are no claims resulting from a breach of any duty owed to Greenscape.

Hernandez filed a complaint against Greenscape seeking to recover damage for the injuries he sustained. Greenscape tendered its defense and indemnity to Navigators, which accepted the tender and agreed to defend. Utica again declined to accept a tender from Navigators.

Navigators filed suit agains tTBR, Utica and Hernandez for a declaratory judgment that Utica had breached its duty to defend and indemnify Greenscape in the underlying lawsuit,

Navigators and Utica filed cross-motions for summary judgment seeking a declaration as to whether Utica had a duty to defend and indemnify Greenscape. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Navigators and denied Utica’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Utica relied on a provision in its policy that excluded coverage for the “independent acts or omissions of [the] additional insured.” Utica argued that the additional insured endorsement was not triggered as Greenscape was sued for its independent acts and omissions, and therefore, there was no duty to defend. Utica argued that “[a]bsent an allegation of an act or omission by TBR that caused ‘in whole or in part’ Hernandez’s injuries for which Greenscape may be found liable, the underlying complaint did not potentially fall within the scope of additional coverage under the Utica policy.

The “Businessowners Extension Endorsement” in the Utica policy provided coverage for an additional insured to the extent that the insured was held liable for TBR’s acts or omissions “arising out of” its ongoing operations. Thus, Utica’s duty to defend Greenscape as an additional insured turned on whether Greenscape’s potential liability in the underlying lawsuit arose out of TBR’s ongoing operations on behalf of Greenscape.

TBR was performing operations in the construction site pursuant to the Trade Agreement. But for TBR’s employment of Hernandez, he would not have been present on the construction site where he was injured. Therefore, Greenscape’s potential liability to Hernandez could be a result of his work for TBR. This potentially gave rise to a duty to defend Greenscape as an additional insured for claims arising out of TBR’s ongoing operations.

The trial court’s grant of summary judgment in faovr of Navigators was affirmed.