Farella Braun & Martel LLP report on a recent California case that sheds light on the tricky world of "additional insured" status. If you draft services agreements that benefit your company, you know that being an "additional insured" can provide your company with additional protection in the event of a covered loss – but you probably aren’t aware that there are often a number of hoops that you must jump through to get your company the protection it needs.
"The concept of Additional Insured status has always been better than the practice: because of carelessness in the issuing process, vague and undefined terms used by carriers, and sometimes unrealistic expectations of insureds (including the want-to-be Additional Insured), confusion and lack of coverage have often turned out to be the order of the day. Now a recent California Court of Appeals case has added yet another wrinkle – and another way that the legitimate expectations of an Additional Insured might be unfulfilled. The case of Gorham v. First Financial Ins. Co., 2006 DJDAR 6683 (filed May 30, 2006), highlights an interesting twist that could impact an entity that expects to be added as an additional insured on another’s CGL policy."
-> Click to subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE Weekly Newsletter featuring in-house counsel news and jobs.