When the additional insured argued it was entitled to coverage for loss to its cars due to a rain storm, the court disagreed because the endorsement only provided for third party coverage. BMW of N. Am. v. Complete Auto Recon Servs., 2012 S.C. App. LEXIS 218 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2012).
BMW had a services agreement with Complete Auto to provide washing and maintenance services on a fleet of BMW vehicles. One night, a Complete Auto employee left the windows of six BMW vehicles open during a severe rain storm. The vehicles suffered property damage totaling $601,720.
Complete Auto had a Garage Insurance Policy with Colony Insurance Company. It provided liability coverage caused by an accident resulting from garage operations. "Comprehensive" coverage was provided for loss to a customer's auto by any cause except collision with another object. Finally, an endorsement named BMW as an additional insured, but only for liability. The endorsement did not mention any other types of coverage.
After the rain storm, BMW filed a claim with Colony, which was rejected. BMW sued Colony. The trial court granted summary judgment to Colony.
On appeal, BMW argued Complete Auto was paying premiums for "Comprehensive" coverage under the "Garage Keepers" coverage, which is separate and distinct from any liability premiums Complete Auto paid, and BMW was an additional insured to that coverage. Colony argued the endorsement only provided liability coverage to BMW. Thus, because liability coverage extended to cover an insured's liability to a third party and BMW had not been found liable to a third party, there was no coverage for BMW.
The appellate court agreed BMW was not afforded coverage under the policy as to the damage to the vehicles.
