On the heels of a 2008 case involving a similar issue (Worth Constr. Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co. [prior post here]), the New York Court of Appeals was again confronted with questions regarding the scope of coverage for an additional insured in a construction context.  See Regal Constr. Co. v. National Union Fire

   Relying on well established Hawaii case law that the insurer must defend unless the underlying allegations demonstrate coverage is impossible, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the Circuit Court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer.  See Island Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Arakaki, 2010 Haw. App. LEXIS 296 (Haw. Ct. App. June 16, 2010).

   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

   The court considered the validity of a contractual provision to provide insurance when the indemnity clause was deemed invalid.  See Travelers Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7113 (5th Cir. April 6, 2010).

   The landlord, The Centre, leased commercial property to the tenant, Best Buy Stores, Inc.  Pursuant to the

   Whether a duty to defend was triggered by allegations of the failure to disclose a chemical's dangerous characteristics was the issue in Shell Chemical L.P. v. Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30143 (S.D. Tex. March 29, 2010). 

   Mission Petroleum was an interstate carrier delivering naphtha to one

    After being sued in a personal injury action, Marc-Scot Realty (property owner) and Willie Construction, sought a defense as additional insureds under Arch Builder's (general contractor) liability policy.  See Marc-Scot Realty Corp v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29380 (E.D. N.Y. March 26, 2010). 

    The court agreed Willie Construction was an

   In Kaufmann v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20027 (D. Md. March 5, 2010), the insureds sold their restaurant to plaintiffs.  The insureds represented that the restaurant and bar seated 400 patrons.  The plaintiffs made known to the insureds they intended to create a patio that would utilize the 400

   The "your work" exclusion was held inapplicable to damaged portions of a building for which the insured was not responsible.  Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. v. Am. Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co., No 05-4031, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2836 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 2010).

    The insured contracted with Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. to build a Golden Corral