I often speak with prime contractors and owners who assure me that they require subcontractors to name them as additional insureds. This is the correct line of thinking as additional insured treatment is one of the key principals to adequately transfer the risk of construction defects or non property injury. The devil, as they say, … Continue reading Ongoing Operations and Completed Operations Coverage
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 … Continue reading Construction Manager entitled to Additional Insured Status
A Florida court has determined that a project owner's (Cypress) general partner was not an additional insured under an insurance policy issued to the Genral Contractor (WPC) who constructed the project. The ruling was made in conjunction with a lawsuit brought by a homeowners association for construction defects, maintenance issues and failure to disclose material … Continue reading Florida Rules Developer Not Entitled to Additional Insured Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation
I intend to devote several upcoming posts on Owner Controlled Insurance Policies (“OCIP”) or “WRAP” coverage due to its continued emergence in the construction, insurance, and legal industries. In an effort not to confuse, this article deals (“OCP”), which is an acronym for Owners and Contractors Protective Liability insurance coverage. Coverage for Operations of Designated … Continue reading Owners and Contractors Protective Liability Coverage Form
The concept known as an “additional insured” refers to a person or organization that enjoys the benefits of being insured under an insurance policy, in addition to whoever originally purchased the insurance policy. Typical language within insurance policies seeks to limit the subject matter that can be “additionally insured.”
The 6th Circuit distinguished South Carolina law from Indiana law in a decision which is considred a large victory for insurers in Indiana and perhaps Kentucky. Beazer Home Investments argued that its costs to repair homes in the Beaumont subdivision should be covered losses. Beazer's argument was based on South Carolina precedent, which the court distinguished, and found not binding in this case.