I Lucy Assevero, etc. v Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC, Scottsdale Insurance Company, (and other third party actions) 2020 NY Slip Op 07529, 2017-07316, Supreme Court of State New York Appellate Division, Second Legal Division (December 16, 2020), the Division appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal which held that there were no further insured provisions in the agreement between the parties.  FACTS
The complainant was allegedly injured while working in premises owned by Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC (hereinafter Hamilton & Church). Castle Construction Group (hereinafter Castle), was a subcontractor in the workplace, insured by an insurance policy issued by the Scottsdale Insurance Company (hereinafter Scottsdale). After the plaintiff sued for personal injury, Hamilton & Church Castle sued and sought damages and damages for breach of contract for alleged failure to procure insurance. Hamilton & Church also sued Scottsdale, seeking an explanation that it was additional insurance under the policy Scottsdale issued to Castle, and that Scottsdale was obligated to defend and compensate it in the underlying personal injury action.
The Supreme Court, among other things, denied the branches of Hamilton & Church's movement that were for a summary judgment and granted the branch of Castle & # 39 ;s cross motion that was for a summary judgment that dismissed third party reasons for recovering damages. for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. In deciding on these proposals, the court found that the subcontractor did not require Castle to obtain liability insurance for Hamilton & Church.
Scottsdale then moved to a summary judgment, declaring that Hamilton & Church was not an additional insured under the policy that Scottsdale issued to Castle, and that Scottsdale had no obligation to defend or replace Hamilton & Church in the action to recover damages. for personal injuries. Hamilton & Church appealed against a summary judgment, declaring that it was an additional insurance under the policy issued by Scottsdale to Castle, and that Scottsdale had an obligation to defend and damage it in the personal injury action. The Supreme Court upheld Scottsdale's proposal and denied Hamilton & Church's cross-movement. Hamilton & Church is appealing.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The supplementary insurance supplemental insurance in the policy issued by Scottsdale to Castle defines an additional insured as "any person or organization that you are required to add as additional insured to this insurance under a written agreement, written agreement or written consent. ”
In order for Hamilton & Church to qualify as additional insured under the insurance, Castle was required to have entered into a written agreement or agreement requiring it to name Hamilton & Church as an additional insured on the insurance. concluded that a provision of a construction contract could not be interpreted as requiring the procurement of additional insurance cover unless such a requirement was expressly and specifically stated.The Court held that there was no provision in the subcontractor which expressly and specifically required Castle to provide additional insurance coverage for Hamilton & Church.
As there was no written agreement in which Castle agreed to name Hamilton & Church as further insured under the Scottsdale policy, the Court of Appeal appealed to the Supreme Court ruling that Hamilton & Church was not an additional insured under this policy.
The Court of Appeal, after making its decision, returned the case to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the imposition of a judgment declaring that Hamilton & Church is not an additional insurance under the policy issued to Castle, and that Scottsdale had not any obligation to defend or indemnify Hamilton & Church in the action to recover damages for personal injury.
Many CGL insurances have a provision that automatically allows a person involved in a contract with the named insured as an additional insured if the contract bit one of the parties requires the said insured to make the other party further insured. Like insurance contracts, all contracts must be read in their entirety. If Hamilton & Church wanted Castle to make it an additional insurance on Castle & # 39 ;s policy at Scottsdale, it had to be stated in the subcontractors' documents. It failed to do this and wasted its time, money and court time by claiming additional insurance status because it did not read its own agreement with the castle.
© 2020 – Barry Zalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to serving as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, cheating and insurance fraud almost equally for policyholders and policyholders. He also acts as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and firstname.lastname@example.org.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.
For the past 53 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurers and their claims staff to become insured.
https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ Last read two issues of ZIFL here.
Go to Barry Zalma videos on Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921  Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile / Zalma / posts  Listen to Podcast: Zalma on Insurance https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episodes Zalma on Insurance
Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel / UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg /
Go to insurance claims library -https: //zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/
https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v= 001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkV7pkuOtkiv6oakpgK33CNlNAYW-WBlLCOZFtgvpSdcL7R-tsWKfMVqG6fEuvmM7Hh7gUEJ7yKOdgHDbGl_cGA5% 1965