Insurer's Duty to Defend Additional Insureds: Navigating Differing Court Standards to Determine When Duty is Triggered

Description

The standards used by courts to determine whether the insurer has a duty to defend the named insured vary by jurisdiction, but conventional wisdom holds that the same standards apply to a determination regarding the duty to defend additional insureds. Or do they? Assessing the duty to defend an additional insured raises unique issues not present in the case of the named insured. The status of a party seeking coverage under an additional insured blanket endorsement or some other contractual arrangement with the named insured may not be readily apparent from the policy.

Further, additional insured endorsements are a great source of litigation as the parties wrangle over the wording of the endorsement. The endorsement may limit coverage to circumstances involving liability related to the conduct of the named insured or to conduct during a specific period of time.

Thus, even courts that adhere to the four corners of the complaint and/or policy rule may be open to considering extrinsic evidence in assessing whether the insurer’s duty to defend and additional insured is triggered. There is, however, very little uniformity among courts with respect to these issues.

Listen as our authoritative panel of insurance practitioners examines the approach employed by courts in determining whether the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered with respect to a claim by an additional insured. The panel will analyze the various circumstances in which courts should and will resort to extrinsic evidence.