The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss a lessor's complaint seeking coverage because the lessor was not insured under the lessee's policy. Dynasty Int'l LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78443 (N.D. Ind. June 16, 2016).

    Plaintiffs leased property to Chrysler Realty Company LLC (CRC). The lease required CRC to obtain a policy naming plaintiff as an insured and covering plaintiffs' interest in the property. CRC's parent, Chrysler, LLC, obtained a policy from Lexington. The policy did not explicitly name plaintiffs as insureds. 

    Aon issued a certificate of insurance which named plaintiffs as additional insureds. The certificated stated, "This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder." The policy provided, "Aon may issue certificates of insurance for informational purposes only."

    While the policy was in effect, plaintiffs' property was damaged. The claim was submitted to Lexington, but was denied because plaintiffs were not insureds under the policy.

    Plaintiffs brought suit. Lexington moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs first argued that the certificate of insurance issued by Aon added them to the policy as additional insureds. But plaintiffs failed to allege an agency relationship between Aon and Lexington. This precluded plaintiffs from arguing that the certificate modified the policy.

    Next, plaintiffs argued they were covered under the text of the policy. The policy named as insureds,

Chrysler LLC and all subsidiary affiliated, associated, or allied companies, corporations, entities or organizations as may now or hereafter be constituted, for which the Insured has the responsibility for purchasing insurance and for which coverage is not otherwise more specifically provided.

Plaintiffs did not allege facts indicating that they had such a relationship with Chrysler. Their complaint alleged only that they and CRC were in a landlord-tenant relationship. Entering into a commercial leasing relationship with a Chrysler subsidiary did not make Plaintiffs a "subsidiary affiliate, associated, or allied" entity of Chrysler.

    Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.