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
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
