Construction Manager Deemed Additional Insured

 

In Regal Const. Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2009 WL 2015419 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.), the prime contractor for a city construction project and its CGL insurer brought an action for declaratory judgment against the construction manager and its insurer, seeking declarations that the prime contractor's insurance policy did not provide coverage to the construction manager as an additional insured in the underlying personal injury action brought by the prime contractor's employee. The trial court declared that the prime contractor's insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the construction manager in the underlying action. The plaintiffs appealed.

 

In its decision, the court determined that a causal connection existed between the injury sustained by the prime contractor's employee at the construction site, when he slipped on the freshly painted floor joist and fell, and the prime contractor's work as such. Because the risk for the injury was covered under the prime contractor's CGL policy, the policy provided coverage to the project's construction manager, as an additional insured, pursuant to policy language providing for additional insured coverage “only with respect to liability arising out of [insured's] ongoing operations performed for that [additional] insured.”

 

The court explained that the prime contractor's responsibilities encompassed all demolition and construction work to be done, which would have included painting floor joists if the prime contractor was instructed to do so by the construction manager.

And, as used in the CGL policy providing for additional insured coverage “only with respect to liability arising out of [insured's] ongoing operations performed for that [additional] insured,” the phrase “arising out of” meant “originating from, incident to, or having connection with.”

 

Further, the focus of the additional insured clause in the prime contractor's CGL policy was not on the precise cause of accident, but rather on the general nature of the operation in the course of which the injury was sustained.

 

Thus, the court held that the policy provided coverage to the construction manager as an additional insured.