Exclusions Held Not To Apply To Additional Insureds

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

          

costr.jpgThe Montana Supreme Court recently declared that exclusions in a commercial general liability policy did not apply to an additional insured. In Swank Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. All Purpose Services, Ltd, the court found coverage on behalf of a general contractor who was an additional insured under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability policy, even though the subcontractor was barred from coverage by the policy’s business risk exclusions. 

 

The policy’s “severability of interests” clause provides each insured with separate coverage for any claims or suits as if different policies applied to the named insured and the additional insured.  The business risk exclusions of the policy only applied to the named insured because these exclusions used the terms “you” and “your,” which the policy defined as the named insured without mention of the additional insured.  The court noted that although the business risk exclusions for the applicable year only specifically referred to the named insured, the subsequent year’s policy changed and specifically applied the business risk exclusions to both the named and additional insureds.  The court relied on the well-established rule that exclusions are narrowly and strictly construed against the insurer and found coverage for the additional insured.

 

This decision is important because it extends coverage to innocent third-parties who contracted for coverage and have claims and suits brought against them as a result of another party’s negligent or intentional acts or omissions.  The court confirms that the responsibility for the defense and indemnity of an insured rests on its insurance company.  In the end the parties received what they contracted for: the additional insured received the insurance coverage that it contracted for with the named insured for claims or suits brought as a result of the named insured’s acts or omissions and the insurance company was bound by its insurance contract, in which it had agreed to insure the additional insured.

 

Melissa Birnbaum 

 

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Exclusions Held Not To Apply To Additional Insureds.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://sskrplaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/69

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by sskrplaw published on April 7, 2008 8:54 AM.

Estate Tax Legislation Remains Uncertain was the previous entry in this blog.

Are Human Subjects Safer Eight Years After Jesse Gelsinger's Death is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.01