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 would indemnify the defendants from all liability arising out of the construction project. The agreement further required Choray to secure insurance on behalf of the defendants. Utica First Insurance Company issued a policy covering Chorary for carpentry work at the site. Neither the policy nor its endorsements provided any coverage for additional insureds. Two defendants received certificates of insurance from their agents seven months after the accident, stating each was an additional insured under Utica's policy. Each certificate stated, however, that it was issued as a matter of information only and conferred no rights on the certificate holder.
After the plaintiff was injured at the construction site, he sued the defendants. The defendants tendered to Utica, but coverage was refused. When defendants sued Utica for declaratory relief, Utica moved for summary judgment.
The defendants argued the hold harmless agreement and the certificates of insurance created an issue of fact regarding whether they were additional insureds under Utica's policy. The court was not impressed. The hold harmless agreement, to which Utica was not a party, could not alter the terms of the policy. Nor could it compel Utica to insure or defend the defendants.
Further, the defendants could not reasonably rely on the certificates that were issued after plaintiff's accident. Since the policy contained no ambiguity as to its lack of coverage of any additional insureds, it conclusively established that the defendants were never named as additional insureds.
