Pro Con, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co.
794 F. Supp. 2d 242 | District Court, D. Maine | 2011
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Pro Con, Inc. sued to enforce its status as an additional insured under a subcontractor's insurance policy. The court ruled that Pro Con qualifies as an additional insured because the subcontractor (CCS) had agreed in writing to add Pro Con to the policy. The insurer must defend Pro Con in a separate lawsuit. This matters because it shows that written agreements requiring additional insured status are enforceable and create real insurance coverage for subcontractors.
Key Takeaways
- •Get written confirmation from your general contractor or client that you'll be named as an additional insured on their insurance policy—this court enforced exactly that.
- •Additional insured status gives you defense coverage if you're sued, even if you weren't the direct party to the original contract.
- •Keep copies of all agreements requiring additional insured status; they're your proof if you need to claim coverage later.
Pro Con is an additional insured on the Interstate Policy secured by subcontractor CCS.
Frequently Asked Question
If my general contractor agrees to add me as an additional insured, can I actually use that insurance if I get sued?
Yes, if the agreement is in writing. This case confirms that written agreements requiring additional insured status are binding on the insurance company. The insurer must defend you in lawsuits related to the project, even if you weren't the original policyholder. Always get that written commitment in your contract.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.