On October 6, 2016, the First Department issued a decision in Three Boroughs, LLC v. Endurance America Specialty Insurance Co., 2016 NY Slip Op. 06554, holding that an additional insured endorsement in a general contractor’s liability policy only covered parties that the general contractor was required by written contract to name as additional insureds. The Court explained:
Since defendant insurers established that the blanket additional insured endorsement in the policy issued to plaintiffs’ maintenance contractor provided coverage to any person or organization that the insured is required by written contract to name as an additional insured, and that the contract between plaintiffs and the maintenance contractor did not contain such a requirement, plaintiff is not an additional insured under the policy.
(Citations omitted.) (A September 15, 2016 decision by Justice Renwick (which we blogged about here) provides a more extensive analysis of the same type of endorsement.)
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that its status as an additional insured was established by a certificate of insurance, explaining:
[T]he certificate language stating that “this certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder [and that] this certificate does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies,” was insufficient to establish additional insured status under the policy.