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:Vratsinas Construction Co. leased a construction trailer from Transport International Pool Inc. d/b/a GE Capital Modular Space. Under the lease agreement, Vratsinas was to procure and keep current a general commercial liability insurance policy with a $1 million per occurrence minimum and a commercial property insurance policy to protect against all loss and damages due to various conditions. Vratsinas secured the requisite insurance through Continental Insurance Co. and Continental Casualty Co. While working in the trailer one day, Tommy Doolin was injured when high winds blew the trailer over. Doolin sued GE for failing to properly secure and anchor the trailer so that it would be safe for its intended use as a construction trailer. GE filed a third-party petition against Vratsinas and Continental to get Continental to defend and indemnify GE. Continental filed moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that id did not owe GE a duty to defend. GE filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking a counter declaration. The trial court granted Continental’s motion and denied GE’s cross motion. GE’s third-party petition against Continental was dismissed with prejudice. On appeal, the parties contest whether GE was a named insured on the Continental policies, and if so, whether there is a duty to defend. HOLDING:Affirmed. Looking to the Continental policy, the court rules that Continental intended to give additional insured status to any person or organization, such as GE, that Vratsinas leased equipment from in a contractual agreement. The court, however, agrees with Continental that coverage for GE is precluded by the exclusionary provision of the endorsement that says coverage “does not apply to”bodily injury’ . . . arising out of the sole negligence of such . . . organization.” The court notes that Doolin alleges that GE was negligent in properly securing the trailer. Doolin alleges no other acts of negligence or omissions related to any other person or organization. “Because Doolin’s pleadings only allege that GE’s conduct led to his injuries, and because we only look to the pleadings and the insurance policy, we conclude that coverage under the endorsement did not apply because the policy excluded coverage for GE’s sole negligence. Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Continental on the issue of Continental’s alleged duty to defend.” The court also holds that Continental is not guilty of bad faith because there was no duty to defend. Nor was its conduct in dealing with GE so extreme that it would cause its own separate injury. OPINION:Holman, J.; Dauphinot, Holman and Gardner, 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.