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 Plant. Intermountain supplied gratings to Ames for the project. In the parties' contract, Intermountain was required to secure insurance naming Ames as an additional insured. Intermountain purchased a CGL policy from Maxum Indemnity Company and sought to add Ames as an additional insured. The policy did not contain a Schedule listing the additional insureds. Intermountain's agent, however, issued a Certificate listing Intermountain as the insured and Ames as the Certificate holder and additional insured. The agent failed to provide a copy of the certificate to Maxum.
An employee of the Wastewater Treatment Plant was injured when he fell from the grating installed by Ames and supplied by Intermountain. The employee sued Ames, who tendered its defense to Intermountain and Maxum. Coverage was denied because Maxum did not have a Certificate of Insurance listing Ames as an additional insured.
The district court found the endorsement addressing additional insureds ambiguous for two reasons. First, the endorsement's clause read, "Blanket as required by written contract and only if certificate of insurance has been provided to Company prior to date of loss." It was unclear which entity was intended to be the "Company" Maxum, Intermountain, or Ames. Maxum argued because the policy stated that "'we', 'us' and 'our' refers to the Company providing this insurance," the policy defined "Company" as Maxum. But the policy relied on the undefined word "Company," rather than using Maxum's own definitions.
The policy was also ambiguous as to what type of coverage it offered to an additional insured. The policy provided blanket coverage, but also coverage to "an insured person or organization shown in the Schedule." There was no schedule attached to the policy, however,. Therefore, it was ambiguous whether the policy offered blanket coverage or coverage pursuant to a separate schedule. Consequently, Ames was an additional insured.
