Secura Insurance v. Phillips 66 Co.
206 N.E.3d 1027 | Appellate Court of Illinois | 2022
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Premier Insulation had a master service agreement (MSA) with ConocoPhillips to work at a refinery. When ConocoPhillips assigned that MSA to Phillips 66, Phillips 66 claimed it was an additional insured under Premier's insurance policy. The Illinois Appellate Court ruled that an assignment of an MSA counts as a written agreement for additional insured coverage purposes. This means when you assign a contract to another company, that company can claim insurance coverage without needing a separate written agreement.
Key Takeaways
- •When you assign a contract to another party, that assignment itself can satisfy the 'written agreement' requirement for additional insured status on your insurance policy.
- •An injured employee's employer doesn't need to be named as a defendant in the lawsuit for insurance coverage to apply—workers' compensation tort immunity rules can still trigger coverage obligations.
- •Review your MSAs carefully before assigning them, as assignment may automatically extend additional insured coverage to the assignee without requiring separate insurance documentation.
An assignment is a contract between the assignor and the assignee.
Frequently Asked Question
If I assign my contract to another company, do they automatically become an additional insured on my insurance?
According to this Illinois case, yes—an assignment of a master service agreement can satisfy the written agreement requirement for additional insured status. This means the company receiving your contract may have insurance coverage rights without needing a separate written agreement. Always check your insurance policy language and notify your insurer before assigning contracts.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.
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.
In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.