A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
A hold harmless agreement and certificates of insurance failed to convey additional insured status under the policy in Pina v. Dora Homes, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 73941 (E.D. N.Y. July 22, 2010).
Several defendants responsible for construction at the site entered a hold harmless agreement with Choray Construction Corporation. The agreement stated Choray…
Whether an oral agreement to name a subcontractor as an additional insured under the policy provided coverage to the subcontractor was the issue in Palmer v. Martinez, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 1049 (La. Ct. App. July 21, 2010).
The plaintiff was employed by A.T. Martinez ("ATM") as a logging truck driver. ATM…
The issue in Pekin Ins. Co. v. Roszak/ADC. LLC, 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 635 (Ill. Ct. App. June 25, 2010) was whether a duty to defend was owed to the additional insured when the underlying complaint did not allege any negligence by the named insured.
An employee of Area Erectors, a subcontractor of the general…
Two interesting issues were presented in Jeffrey M. Brown, Assoc., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 108 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 23, 2010). First, what was the scope of coverage provided by an additional insured endorsement which provided the coverage was "excess over any other insurance?" Second…
Marriott entered a franchise agreement with Columbia Hotels. See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Amoco Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53253 (W.D. Mo. May 28, 2010). In the agreement, Columbia agreed to "indemnify, defend and save harmless Marriott against all losses, damages, claims, . . . arising out of . . . the Franchised…
Utilizing a novel argument, the insured contended it had no duty to defend the additional insured until there was a finding of fault against the named insured. The court rejected this argument in 373 Wythe Realty, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45947 (E.D. N.Y. May 11, 2010).
Wythe…
Competing motions for summary judgment regarding the duty to defend an additional insured were both denied by the court in Detroit Public Schools Program Mgt. Team, LLC v. Valley Forge Ins. Co, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40904 (E.D. Mich. April 27, 2010).
The Detroit Public Schools Program Management Team was organized to act as an…
Lloyd’s, along with other excess insurers, recently filed suit against BP, seeking a declaration that there is no obligation to cover BP as an additional insured in policies issued to Transocean Ltd. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. BP P.L.C., No. 4:10-cv-01823 (S.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010) (See Complaint).
Transocean owns the…
An ambiguous endorsement on the scope of coverage for additional insureds meant the insurer had a duty to defend. See Ames Const., Inc. v. Intermountain Indus., Inc., 2010 U.S. LEXIS 41588 (D. Mont. April 28, 2010).
Ames was the general contractor on a project to expand and upgrade the Missoula Wastewater Treatment…
Whether an exclusion for coverage of bodily injury to an employee of "the insured" applied to an additional insured was the issue in James McHugh Construction Co. v. Zurich Am Ins. Co., 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 318 (Ill. Ct. App. April 13, 2010).
McHugh, the general contractor, hired JMS Electric, Inc. to…
