Notice of a claim from the additional insured was sufficient even though the named insured failed to give proper notice as required by the policy. Mt. Hawley Co. v. Robinette Demolition, Inc., 2013 Ill. App. LEXIS 499 (Ill. Ct. App. July 26, 2013).
Robinette and Cobra Concrete Cutting Service, Inc. entered an ongoing subcontractor agreement under which Cobra would perform concrete cutting services for Robinette on future projects. Cobra was to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Robinette and any other additional insureds identified in an attached Schedule B against all claims. Schedule B required Cobra to obtain a policy with an endorsement naming Robinette and any other parties "reasonably required by Robinette" as additional Insureds.
Mt. Hawley issued a CGL policy to Cobra, requiring the named insured to notify Mt. Hawley of a claim or suit against any insured.
Robinette sent Cobra a work order for a project. Robinette then received a certificate of insurance, adding itself and Valenti Builders, another subcontractor, as additional insureds.
Thereafter, a Cobra employee, Richard Bucholz, was injured while working on the project. Bucholz filed suit agasint Robinette and Valenti Builders. Two years after the accident, but only two months after suit was filed, Robinette tendered its and Valenti's defense and indemnification to Mt. Hawley.
Mt. Hawley denied coverage because the notice was too late. Mt. Hawley also determined that Valenti was not an additional insured because the Agreement did not require Cobra to add Valenti as an insured.
Mt. Hawley filed a complaint for declaratory relief on the coverage issues. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Mt. Hawley because Cobra had failed to give notice of the Bucholz suit.
The appellate court reversed. Only Cobra, the named insured, had a duty to provide notice of an occurrence. There was nothing in the policy making coverage for the additional insureds contingent upon the named insured's compliance with its duty to notify.
The appellate court also ruled that Valenti was an additional insured. Construed together, the Agreement, work order and certificate of insurance listing Valenti as an additional insured fulfilled the policy's written contract requirements even if Valenti's name did not appear in the Agreement.
