Tag Archives: additional insured

Does the Causation-Trigger Wording of an Additional Insured Endorsement Matter?

When two companies agree to work together, they will try to allocate the risk of something going wrong to the company that’s in the best position to prevent that from happening. For example, in the construction industry a general contractor will usually try to push risks from construction defects onto the subcontractors. That risk-transfer usually … Continue Reading

In-House Counsel: Take Care in Contracting for Additional Insured Coverage from Foreign Suppliers

Most businesses, and particularly retailers, require that their suppliers name the retailer as an “additional insured” on the supplier’s general liability policy. This means that if a customer is injured because of the supplier’s product, and the customer sues the retailer, the supplier’s insurance will have to pay to defend the retailer in the lawsuit. … Continue Reading

Additional Insured Promises Mean Companies May Pay Twice for Employee Injuries

Most business owners understand that in exchange for paying premiums for workers compensation insurance, they get immunity from suit from their own injured employees.  This is usually referred to as the workers compensation “exclusive remedy”: if an employee accepts workers compensation insurance benefits, the employee may not sue the employer (subject to certain exceptions for … Continue Reading

Oregon Employer Liability Ruling Highlights Importance of Additional Insured Status

Earlier this year the Oregon Supreme Court expanded the potential liability of contractors and others for injury to employees of others on a job site, making it more critical than ever for contractors to ensure that they have additional insured protection. In Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest, an employee of a framing subcontractor on a building project … Continue Reading

Allianz Trial on Pollution Exclusion Issues Highlights Importance of Jury Instructions

One of the most common pollution exclusions in older general liability policies is the standard-form 1973 “qualified” pollution exclusion (often called the “1973 Exclusion”).[1] The 1973 Exclusion excludes pollution coverage unless the “occurrence” that caused the damage was “sudden and accidental.”  In Oregon, this exclusion will not apply if the pollution results from “discharges, dispersals, … Continue Reading

New Oregon Decision Impacts Umbrella Coverage and Additional Insured Status

A new decision from the Oregon Supreme Court on indemnity agreements may impact one of the most headache-inducing negotiating points in indemnity contracts: “additional insured” coverage under umbrella policies.  Common assumptions about what to require as “additional insurance” may need to be re-examined as a result. General contractors usually demand that subcontractors procure primary-layer liability … Continue Reading

Ore. Appeals Court Important Holding on Construction Indemnity Agreements

Just as the ball began to fall in New York to herald the New Year Oregon’s Court of Appeals issued an important ruling on contractual indemnity agreements in construction contracts.  The decision isn’t directly on insurance coverage, but is important because of the overlap between additional insured issues, contractual indemnity, and Oregon’s “anti-indemnity” statute (ORS … Continue Reading

Montana Decision Has Lessons for Drafting Indemnity Provisions

A new decision from the District of Montana, WBI Energy Transmission v. Colony Insurance, illustrates the dangers of a vaguely-worded additional insured requirement in a contract.  In WBI a pipeline worker employed by a mid-tier contractor, “Pro Pipe” was injured; after collecting from worker’s comp, he sued both the owner (WBI) and the sub-contractor.  The owner … Continue Reading

Washington Court Smacks Down Lloyd’s Effort to “Cook the Books”

Subcontractors on construction projects are commonly required to provide “additional insured” liability coverage to the general contractor.  The coverage is available to the extent that the general is liable because of the subcontractor’s negligence – which is the case most of the time.  In Oregon it is rare for a subcontractor’s carrier to actually agree … Continue Reading
LexBlog