A federal appellate court on Friday upheld a lawsuit in favor of construction companies in litigation with Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co. on coverage for an injured worker.
The worker was seriously injured and incurred significant expenses for medical treatment and life care. when he fell in December 2016 while working on the trusses for a new home in Kissimmee, Florida, according to the judgment of the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta in Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co. v. L. Pellinen Construction Inc., et. al.
After paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for these continued expenses, the workers' insurer's insurer filed a personal injury lawsuit in his name against several entities involved in the construction of the house, including the Oviedo, Florida-based L. Pellinen Construction Inc., the housing construction company that had subcontracted with the worker's employer to help frame the house; Orlando-based Mattamy Florida LLC, the owner of the lot where the house was built; and Mattamy Orlando LLC, a Mattamy Florida branch that had hired Pellinen to carry out the house's framing and cladding work.
Pellinen was insured under a commercial general liability policy issued by Endurance, a unit of Sompo International Holdings Ltd., which also coverage for additional insured.
Mattamy Florida and Mattamy Orlando submitted their defense in the employee's lawsuit to Endurance, claiming that they were further insured under Pellinen's insurance by virtue of a written agreement with the company.
Endurance refused to defend the Mattamy units and stated compensation. to workers.
The insurer brought an action before the US District Court in Orlando, which held that the companies were further insured under the coverage and that the exemptions did not apply.
The ruling. maintained by a unanimous three-judge in appellate court.
The panel's ruling said that Endurance claimed that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring that the companies were entitled to coverage as further insured, and claimed that this was outside the scope of its declaratory judgment. action.
“We do not agree. The question of the insured status of the Mattamy defendant was entirely up to the district court ", it was stated in the judgment.
Actors in the case did not respond to the request for comment.