Interested in training for your team? Click here to learn more

Coverage Pitfalls for Additional Insureds: Interplay With SIRS and "Other Insurance Provisions," Interpreting AI Endorsements

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CLE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Conducted on Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926

This CLE course will discuss key pitfalls facing AIs in ensuring adequate coverage, including the presence of a self-insured retention (SIR) in the named insured’s policy, the impact of “other insurance” provisions in the named insured’s policies, and the interpretation of the insuring clause in the AI endorsement.


Companies or contractors may be at risk when added as an additional insured (AI) on a subcontractor’s CGL policy with a SIR. Some courts have ruled that the AI is not entitled to a defense or indemnity until the named insured satisfies the SIR.

When an entity qualifies as an AI and several policies cover the same risk, counsel must determine the priority of coverage under applicable policies. The “other insurance” provisions need to be analyzed to determine which policy applies as primary or excess, or if multiple policies apply as coinsurance.

A recent New York case demonstrates another pitfall for AIs. In Burlington Ins. Co. v. NYC Transit Auth. (N.Y. Ct. App. June 6, 2017), the court denied AI coverage to contractors MTA and NYCTA for purposes of a loss caused by an act of a named insured subcontractor.

The court held that the policy’s language providing coverage for liability “caused, in whole or in part, by” the named insured applies only to injuries proximately caused by the named insured. The court also ruled that there was AI coverage only for the named insured subcontractor’s negligent acts. Because the court determined that the named insured did not proximately cause the injury and was not negligent or otherwise at fault, there was no coverage for the AIs.

Listen as our authoritative panel of insurance attorneys analyzes risks facing AI contractors in ensuring adequate coverage. The panel will discuss the presence of a SIR in the named insured’s policy, the impact of “other insurance” provisions in subcontractor’s policies, and the interpretation of the insuring clause in the AI endorsement.



  1. Brief overview of obtaining AI coverage
  2. Interplay of AI coverage with SIRs in named insured’s CGL policy
  3. Priority of coverage for AIs when several policies cover the same risk
  4. Interpreting the AI endorsement language


The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Is a policy on which a company is added as an AI primary and non-contributory over other insurance carried by the AI party?
  • How can companies or contractors seeking AI status plan around “other insurance” clause in the named insured’s policy?
  • How can the policy language limit or extend coverage for acts of an AI?


Mason, Lawrence
Larry D. Mason

Goldberg Segalla

Mr. Mason is a Goldberg Segalla LLP Partner where he dedicates his practice to first-party and third-party coverage,...  |  Read More

John J. McLeod
John J. McLeod

McLeod Law Group

Mr. McLeod represents policyholders in a wide variety of insurance claims and programs. This includes the negotiation...  |  Read More

Matthew G. Jeweler
Matthew G. Jeweler

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Mr. Jeweler is a litigator who represents corporate policyholders in complex coverage disputes, helping clients...  |  Read More

Silberstein, Dawn
Dawn A. Silberstein

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker

Ms. Silberstein is experienced representing insurance carriers and policyholders in litigation involving...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video