X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On March 19, 1996, Safety Lights Co. notified one of its vendors, Via Net, of its company policy requiring vendors to add Safety Lights as an additional insured on the vendor’s liability policy and send Safety Light a certificate of insurance. A Safety Lights representative also called Via Net to relay the same information. Via Net secured a commercial general liability policy from Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. for the period from Feb. 28, 1997, to Feb. 28, 1998. Sedgwick James of Washington, Lumbermens’ insurance broker, sent Safety Lights the requisite certificate. The certificate informed the holder that the Lumbermens CGL policy is an occurrence, rather than a claims-made policy. The certificate gives the policy number, effective dates for the liability coverage, and lists the various coverage limits under the policy. The certificate stated that the certificate holder Safety Lights was added as an additional insured for general liability policies. The certificate also stated that it was issued only as a matter of information and conferred no right upon the certificate holder. Guy Wright, who was working for either Via Net or one of its affiliates, was injured at work on June 25, 1997. Wright sued Safety Lights, who, on Oct. 27, sent a letter to Sedgwick asking for defense and indemnity based on the certificate of insurance. Safety Lights received a letter from Lumbermens on Dec. 9 saying that Safety Lights was not an additional insured under the Lumbermens policy issued to Via Net. Safety Lights and its insurer, TIG Insurance Co., settled Wright’s case Nov. 16, 1999, for $235,000. TIG also paid Safety Lights’ attorneys’ fees. Safety Lights and TIG sued Sedgwick and Lumbermens in federal district court in February 1999. The federal district court ruled that the certificate of insurance did not entitle Safety Lights to coverage. The federal district court also rejected Safety Light’s and TIG’s claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. Pursuant to their subrogation rights, Safety Lights and TIG then sued Via Net on Dec. 7, 2001, asserting breach of contract, negligence, deceptive trade practices, fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. Via Net filed for summary judgment based on the applicable statutes of limitation. In response, Safety Lights and TIG dropped all but the breach of contract claim. Nonetheless, the trial court granted Via Net’s motion and signed a take-nothing judgment against Safety Lights and TIG. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court addresses Safety Lights’ and TIG’s argument that the discovery rule prevented a strict application of the four-year limitations period for breach of contract claims. Consequently, the court says it must determine when Safety Lights discovered or should have discovered that Via Net failed to add Safety Lights as an additional insured. The court rejects Via Net’s contention that the Safety Lights should have discovered the failure when it received the Sedgwick certificate. “We do not agree that Safety Light’s receipt of the certificate of insurance establishes as a matter of law that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, appellants should have known that appellees had breached the alleged agreement to have Safety Lights made an additional insured on [Via Net's] policies.” The court acknowledges that, in addition to the mention of the policy’s effective date and a description of the policy, the certificate also said it was for informational purposes only and that it did not confer rights on its holder, Safety Lights. On the other hand, the disclaimer language could reasonably be interpreted to mean that, as an additional insured, Safety Lights had the same coverage as the primary insureds on the policy, subject to the policy’s terms, exclusions and conditions. The court concludes that reasonable minds could differ on whether the certificate served to put Safety Lights on notice that it should further inquire into its additional insured status. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. OPINION:Higley, J.; Radack, C.J., Higley and Bland, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.