An Illinois appellate court ruled that an additional insured is not entitled to coverage when the underlying complaint makes no allegations against the primary insured for which the additional insured could be held vicariously liable. The case is Pekin Ins. Co. v. Illinois Cement Co., LLC, 51 N.E.3d 812 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). 

Illinois Cement Company (ICC) hired Perino Plumbing & Heating (Perino) to provide and install a trash pump and PVC line at a commercial property owned by ICC. The contract between ICC and Perino required Perino to obtain insurance and also included a clause that stated Perino would "indemnify and hold [ICC] harmless from and against any loss, liability, damage or expense whatsoever" based on Perino's action or inaction in carrying out the contract. Perino thereafter purchased a CGL policy from Pekin that included an endorsement naming ICC as an additional insured. 

One day, water began overflowing from a tanker owned by ICC while Perino employees were on the job. Michael Hanson, a Perino employee, was carrying a pump when he slipped in the overflowed water and suffered injuries. Hanson sued ICC as the property owner for negligent failure to maintain the premises "in a reasonably safe condition" (the underlying complaint). However, Hanson's complaint alleged negligence only against ICC, not Perino.