A recent decision in New York has held that a construction manager was entitled to additional insured treatment under a general contractor’s CGL policy. Turner Constr. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2704 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 23, 2015).
The Construction Manager (“Turner”) was hired to “provide pre-construction services and construction management services for the Project.”
The owner hired two prime contractors under condition that each would procure endorsements to their CGL policies which were to name the owner and a “construction manager” which went unnamed.
Plaintiff in the underlying suit, Edward Walls, was an employee of a prime contractor and was injured at the job site. He sued Turner and others for injuries. Turner claimed it was an additional insured under a Travelers policy which was issued to the prime contractor employing Plaintiff. Travelers argued Turner was not an additional insured because it was not named in the policy and was nowhere identified as the construction manager. Travelers further contended that Turner was not entitled to a defense because its costs in the underlying action did not equal the deductible in the Travelers’ policy.
The court found that Turner was the construction manager and the contractor’s promise in the contract with the project owner to provide additional insured coverage for the construction manager applied to Turner.
The court went on to find that additional insured status was conferred under Travelers’ policy for any entity that the insured was required by a written contract to name as an additional insured.
It was of no consequence that Turner was not named specifically in the contract or policy. Therefore, Travelers had a duty to defend Turner.