Insurers Dispute Who Must Defend Additional Insured
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/ghfcpVQv, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gXhwbZjK and at https://lnkd.in/gvJHghHt, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4806
Other Insurance Clauses Control who Defends Whom
The Travelers and Defendant Ohio Security Insurance Company (“Ohio Security”) moved for summary judgment. In The Travelers v. Ohio Security No. 23-cv-3451 (AS), United States District Court, S.D. New York (May 10, 2024) the USDC resolved the disputes.
BACKGROUND
Ohio Security issued an insurance policy to Sutega USA Corp. (“Sutega”). Travelers sued seeking a declaratory judgment that, under the policy, Ohio Security has a duty to defend and indemnify Shawmut Design and Construction (“Shawmut”), Zara USA, Inc. (“Zara”), Eklecco Newco LLC (“Eklecco”), and Pyramid Management Group, LLC (“Pyramid”) in a state court lawsuit.
Construction Contracts
In 2015, Zara, Shawmut, and Sutega entered into several contracts related to the construction of a new Zara store in Palisades, New York. The contract states that Shawmut “shall supervise and direct the Work” and all parties included additional insured provisions and other insurance provisions.
Insurance Policies
The Travelers policy provided commercial general liability coverage subject to certain terms, conditions, and exclusions. The Travelers policy contains an amendment to the “other insurance” provision stating: “This insurance is excess over any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the insured when the insured is added as an additional insured under any other policy, including umbrella or excess policy.”
The Travelers Policy provides coverage to Zara, Eklecco, and Pyramid as additional insureds subject to certain terms and conditions. Ohio Security issued a commercial general liability policy to Sutega. The Ohio Security policy applied Sutega’s place of business is listed as an address in Miami, Florida. As relevant here, the policy states that Ohio Security has “the right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking” damages for bodily injury.
The policy contains a Commercial General Liability Extension Endorsement that defines “insured” to include: “any person or organization whom you have agreed to add as an additional insured in a written contract.
The Ohio Security policy also contains an “other insurance” provision.
Underlying State Court Lawsuit
John Autenrieth was injured while using a table saw during the construction. Autenrieth sued Eklecco, Shawmut, Apollo, Pyramid, Zara, and Palisades Center, LLC in New York state court. Autenrieth alleges that the defendants breached their non-delegable duties under New York law to maintain a safe work environment.
Shawmut’s insurer, Travelers, alleged that Sutega’s insurer, Ohio Security, has a duty to defend and to indemnify Shawmut, Zara, Eklecco, and Pyramid in the state court action. Ohio Security denied that its policy covers these entities. The only disputed issue for the Court is whether Shawmut is covered by the Ohio Security policy. The answer is yes, at least as to Ohio Security’s duty to defend Shawmut.
DISCUSSION
For purposes of these motions, the Court found that no actual conflict exists. The only disputed issue is whether the Ohio Security policy covers Shawmut. Under both Florida and New York law, an insurer’s duty to defend is broad. The parties do not dispute that there is a written contract between Sutega and Shawmut. Therefore, Ohio Security has a duty to defend Shawmut in the underlying state court action pursuant to the policy issued to Sutega.
Primary Coverage
Shawmut is an additional insured under the Ohio Security policy in the underlying state court litigation. Neither party disputes that Shawmut also has insurance coverage as the named insured under the Travelers policy. The Travelers argued that Ohio Security is required to provide Shawmut coverage on a primary and non-contributory basis. Given the plain language of the insurance contracts and Ohio Security’s failure to respond, the Court agrees with Travelers.
ZALMA OPINION
The “other insurance” clauses in insurance policies often results in unnecessary disputes between insurers as to who, between multiple insurers who insure against the same risk of loss, must be first in line to defend or indemnify an insured. The court resolved one of those disputes in this case and told the various insurers and insureds to resolve any remaining issued. To answer the question as to Shawmut, Ohio is on first.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or at at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
