Where the pleadings allege that a downstream party was the proximate cause of the loss, there will likely be no argument that the downstream insurer owes at least a defense under AI coverage. However, where the downstream party is the employer, there is a greater likelihood of disputes over AI coverage. (Credit: JaysonPhotography) Where the pleadings allege that a downstream party was the proximate cause of the loss, there will likely be no argument that the downstream insurer owes at least a defense under additional insured coverage. However, where the downstream party is the employer, there is a greater likelihood of disputes over additional insured coverage. (Credit: JaysonPhotography)

In a significant break with case law, the Court of Appeals ruled in Burlington v. NYC Transit Authority that additional insured endorsement on a commercial general liability (CGL) policy is "restricted to liability for any bodily injury caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions of the named insured, the coverage applies to injury proximately caused by the named insured."

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader

  • All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
  • Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
  • Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Litigation
Commercial Lines
Workers' Comp
Corporate Risk