No Requirement for “Additional Insured” Status if not Called for by the Construction Contract

Read the full article at and at plus more than 3500 posts.

In Lucy Assevero, etc. v. Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC, Scottsdale Insurance Company, (and other third-party actions), 2020 NY Slip Op 07529, 2017-07316, Supreme Court Of The State Of New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department (December 16, 2020) the appellate division was asked to reverse a finding by the trial court that determined additional insured provision did not exist in the contract between the parties.


Many CGL policies have a provision that will automatically make a person involved in a contract with the named insured as an additional insured if the contract between the parties require the named insured to make the other party an additional insured. Like insurance contracts, all contracts must be read in their entirety. If Hamilton & Church wanted Castle to make it an additional insured it needed to say so in the subcontract documents. It wasted its time, money and the time of the court by asserting a claim for additional insured status.