Last month in Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Co.. Index No.: 653199/11, the First Department held that an insurance provider is not required to provide coverage to an “additional insured” who has not entered into a written contract with the insured. The crux of the decision was the Court’s interpretation of the additional insured provision contained within the insurance policy, which provided that an additional insured is “any person or organization with whom you (the insured) have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract.”
Finding the terms of the provision clear and unambiguous, the Court was obliged to attribute to the provision its plain meaning, which clearly established that an additional insured must be a party “with whom” as opposed to “for whom” the insured had entered into a written contract.
(internal citations omitted)
The Law Office of Aaron M. Schlossberg, Esq., P.L.L.C.
(This writing is for general information purposes only, should not be construed as legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.)