In a dispute between two insurers, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the landlord was not an additional insured under the tenant’s policy. Peleus Ins. Co. v. Am. European Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17981 June 22, 2026).

Blossom Miller sued 57th Avenue and 21st Century in state court alleging that she was injured when she tripped on the sidewalk in front of the leased premises (the “Miller Action”). The premises was leased by 57th Avenue to 21st Century.

57th Avenue and 21st Century executed a ten-year lease which was signed by Charles Ingber as 57th Avenue’s agent. The lease required 21st Century to obtain general commercial liability insurance for the benefit of the owner of the property, 57th Avenue. 21st Century obtained such a policy from American European Insurance Company (AEIC). The policy included an endorsement entitled “Additional Insured – Managers or Lessors of Premises” that extended coverage to a person or organization with respect to “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to [21st Century] and shown in the Schedule.” The Schedule was blank, but its text indicated that “[i]nformation required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.” The declarations identified 21st Century as the “Named Insured.” The same page listed “Charles Ingber” as the “mortgage/Loss Payable/Additional Interest.”

Peleus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to “Charles Ingber et al.” The policy provided primary coverage to its insureds, except that the coverage was excess over “[a]ny other primary insurance available to [the insured] covering liability for damages arising out of the premises or operations . . . for which [the insured] has been added as an additional insured.”

In response to the Miller Action, Peleus demanded that AEIC defend and indemnify 57th Avenue. AEIC refused. Peleus filed suit seeking a declaration that AEIC had to defend and indemnify 57th Avenue in the Miller Action because 57th Avenue was an additional insured under the AEIC policy and coverage from AEIC was primary and non-contributory to any coverage available from Peleus.

The district court concluded that AEIC had no duty to defend or indemnify 57th Avenue. Because 57th Avenue was not listed as an additional insured in the Schedule or in the Declarations, it did not qualify as an additional insured under the AEIC policy. Peleus argued that Ingber was an additional insured under the AEIC policy and that Ingber rather than 57th Avenue was named in the endorsement pursuant to a scrivener’s error. The district court responded that Inger was referenced in the Declarations as “Mortgage/Loss Payable/Additional Interest,” not as an additional insured. The district court also reasoned that reformation of the AEIC policy was not appropriate because there was no evidence of fraud or mutual mistake.

The Second Circuit agreed that the undisputed facts compelled the proposition that Ingber was an additional insured under the AEIC policy. However, the undisputed facts also defeated the proposition that the policy intended to name 57th Avenue as the additional insured and named Ingber only in error. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of AEIC.

The inclusion of the “Additional Insured – Managers or Lessors of Premises'” endorsement in the policy – even though left empty – suggested that there was some additional insured coverage. Ingber was identified in the endorsement. Read together, these provisions were strong evidence that Ingber’s designation in the Businessowners Declaration as an “additional interest’ was intended to memorialize his coverage as an additional insured. The record established that Ingber was an additional insured under the policy.

However, the district court was correct in determining that there was insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact about whether the parties to the AEIC policy -21st Century and AEIC – clearly intended to cover 57th Avenue (as opposed to Ingber) as an additional insured as required to benefit from the doctrine of scrivener’s error.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed.