“Sole Negligence of Additional Insured” does not Negate Insured’s Duty to Defend under a General Commercial Liability Policy
During a roof resurfacing job, an employee of a sub-subcontractor was killed when flipped over by a boom-lift. His estate brought suit against the general contractor and three other defendants for negligence, none of whom were the company who had hired this sub-subcontractor. The insurer had issued a general commercial liability policy to the hiring company, which contained an exclusion provision that did not allow coverage for a claim arising from the “sole negligence of an additional insured.” The general contractor sought a declaratory judgment that the insurer owed it a duty to defend and indemnify as an additional insured. The primary issue was whether the sole negligence clause negated the insurer’s duty.
The court held that the plain, unambiguous meaning of “the sole negligence of any additional insured” implies “exclusively or entirely” or “single-handedly,” since a policy’s terms must be construed liberally in favor of the insured. The general contractor was the only additional insured on the policy, and in the suit it was named, along with three other defendants. Therefore, the negligence allegations were not exclusively based on the general contractor’s acts, and the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify.
A-1 Roofing Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2556914, —N.E.2d —- (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2011).
