The judges of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters must defend a subcontractor in a construction suit, but agreed that it was too early to decide whether Cincinnati also had a duty to indemnify the subcontractor. The name of the case is Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co. v. KNS Group, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27949 (11th Cir. 2022). Note that this decision has not been published and is therefore subject to specific rules concerning citation and precedential value. 

PPE Casino Resorts (PPE) hired general contractor Tutor Perini Building Corporation (Tutor Perini) to build a new casino in Maryland. Tutor Perini, in turn, contracted with GM&P Consulting and Glazing Contractors, Inc. (GM&P) for the building's exterior glazing, for which GM&P hired KNS Group, LLC (KNS). As part of its contract with GM&P, KNS obtained a commercial general liability (CGL) policy from Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters (Cincinnati) that named GM&P as an additional insured and would cover GM&P for damages caused, in whole or in part, by the work of KNS. 

In June 2020, PPE sued Tutor Perini and its subcontractors because GM&P had allegedly installed defective windows and glazing that "creat[ed] a risk of property damage." GM&P filed a third-party suit against KNS for defective construction. Shortly thereafter, Cincinnati filed suit for a declaratory judgment that they owed neither the duty to defend nor the duty to indemnify to GM&P or KNS. The judges of the Southern District of Florida held that while Cincinnati owed neither duty to GM&P, it did have the duty to defend KNS even if the duty to indemnify was yet to be determined.