The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion to compel arbitration of a claim by the policy’s additional insured. New Land Interiors Corp. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257473 (S.D. N. Y. Dec. 12, 2025).

New Land Interiors Corporation was sued for negligence in state court. New Land was an additional insured under a policy issued by Kinsale Insurance Company to non-party Millennium Services, LLC. New Land sough a defense and indemnity coverage from Kinsale.

The policy contained an arbitration clause requiring that “all disputes over coverage or any rights afforded under this Policy, including whether an entity or person is a named insured, an insured, or additional insured . . . shall be submitted to binding arbitration.” Kinsdale moved for an order compelling arbitration and staying the underlying action. New Land opposed the motion and argued that, as a non-signatory to the policy, it could not be compelled to arbitrate.

New Land argued that it was a non-signatory seeking indirect benefits under the policy. Under New York law, a non-signatory could be estopped from avoiding an arbitration clause where it knowingly sought or obtained direct benefits from the agreement that contained the clause; incidental or indirect benefits did not suffice. A non-signatory’s attempt to obtain coverage, indemnity or defense under an insurance contract, including as an additional insured, was a paradigm of seeking a direct benefit flowing from the policy itself.

New Land’s complaint sought defense and indemnity on the premise that New Land was an insured or additional insured under the policy. In the complaint, New Land expressly identified itself as an insured or additional insured and sought a declaration requiring Kinsale to defend and indemnify it on a primary and noncontributory basis up to the limits of the Kinsale policy.

Equitable estoppel appliesd and New Land was bound by the arbitration clause in the policy. New Land could not accept the policy’s benefits while rejecting its arbitration provision. Additionally, the policy’s arbitration clause included disputes about whether an entity or person was an additional insured.

Therefore, Kinsale’s motion to comple arbitration was granted and the case was stayed.