Issue of Fact Precludes Summary Judgment on Claim for Additional Insured Coverage
In The Ins. Co. of New York v. Central Mut. Ins. Co. (NY App., 1st Dept., Jan. 15, 2008), the court held that issues of fact whether contract between general and subcontractor required subcontractor to name general and owner of construction site as additional insureds precluded summary judgment. The lower court had determined there was an issue of fact whether the subcontract imposed an obligation on the subcontractor to obtain insurance for the owner, and found no issue of fact with respect to its obligation to obtain insurance for the general contractor. On appeal, the court found the subcontract contained at least one page that was taken from the contract between the owner and general, and a plain reading of the contract between the general and subcontractor mirrored a contract between the general and another contractor, thus raising an issue of fact as to the intent of the parties concerning which entities should be included as additional insureds.
