PER CURIAM

Read Full-Text Decision

Technology Insurance (TI) appealed from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. Landlsman Development (LD) and RLI Insurance sought declarations TI was obligated to defend and indemnify LD as an additional insured in an underlying personal injury suit. TI moved for summary judgment claiming it had no obligation to defend or indemnify LD as it did not qualify as an additional insured under the policy. The motion was granted, and RLI moved to reargue, and upon same, the amended complaint was reinstated against TI. The panel concluded TI was entitled to a declaratory judgment, thus, modified the order, granting TI’s motion as it sought a declaration, and judgment in its favor declaring it had no obligation to defend or indemnify LD in the underlying suit. It found there was no written contract between the injured worker’s employer, BSG, and LD at the time of the accident in the underlying suit, thus, agreeing with TI that LD did not qualify as an additional insured under TI’s policy. The panel stated a written contract executed nearly four years after the accident, based on oral mutual understanding did not constitute a written contract in effect at the time of the accident. Also, certificates of insurance in LD’s possession did not confer additional insured status.

PER CURIAM

Read Full-Text Decision

Technology Insurance (TI) appealed from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. Landlsman Development (LD) and RLI Insurance sought declarations TI was obligated to defend and indemnify LD as an additional insured in an underlying personal injury suit. TI moved for summary judgment claiming it had no obligation to defend or indemnify LD as it did not qualify as an additional insured under the policy. The motion was granted, and RLI moved to reargue, and upon same, the amended complaint was reinstated against TI. The panel concluded TI was entitled to a declaratory judgment, thus, modified the order, granting TI’s motion as it sought a declaration, and judgment in its favor declaring it had no obligation to defend or indemnify LD in the underlying suit. It found there was no written contract between the injured worker’s employer, BSG, and LD at the time of the accident in the underlying suit, thus, agreeing with TI that LD did not qualify as an additional insured under TI’s policy. The panel stated a written contract executed nearly four years after the accident, based on oral mutual understanding did not constitute a written contract in effect at the time of the accident. Also, certificates of insurance in LD’s possession did not confer additional insured status.