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

Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:

  • Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
  • Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
  • Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
  • Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
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