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:Atofina Petrochemicals Inc. hired Triple S Industrial Corp. as an independent contractor to perform maintenance and construction work at Atofina’s Port Arthur oil refinery. Matthew Todd Jones, a TripleS employee working at the Atofina facility pursuant to the contract, drowned after he fell through the corroded roof of a storage tank filled with fuel oil. Jones’ relatives sued TripleS and Atofina for wrongful death, and Atofina initially sought insurance coverage from Admiral, the primary insurer for the contract between Triple S and Atofina. Admiral quickly tendered its $1 million policy limit to Atofina. Hoping to recover any additional costs, Atofina also claimed insurance coverage as an “additional insured” under TripleS’s umbrella policy with Evanston. The Evanston excess policy contains two relevant definitions of who is an insured under the policy. First, under section III.B.5 of the policy, an insured is: “[a]ny . . . person or organization who is insured under a policy of”underlying insurance.’ The coverage afforded such insureds under this policy will be no broader than the”underlying insurance’ except for this policy’s Limit of Insurance.” Second, under section III.B.6 of the policy, an insured may also be “[a] person or organization for whom [Triple S has] agreed to provide insurance as is afforded by this policy; but that person or organization is an insured only with respect to operations performed by [Triple S] or on [Triple S's] behalf, or facilities owned or used by [Triple S].” Evanston denied the claim, and Atofina impled Evanston as a third-party defendant seeking a declaration of coverage. Atofina later severed its suit against Evanston from the remainder of the Jones litigation and amended its complaint to assert a breach of contract claim. Both parties moved for partial summary judgment. While the motions were pending, Atofina settled the wrongful death litigation for $6.75 million and continued to seek recovery of the remaining $5.75 million from Evanston. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Evanston. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Atofina was covered under the Evanston policy. It then remanded the case for a determination of penalties and attorneys fees. The court of appeals began its analysis by observing that TripleS’s agreement to purchase insurance (and thus name Atofina as an “additional insured”) was not limited to insuring only the indemnity obligation. If this were the case, the court noted, the insurance requirement would likewise be limited only to the indemnity liability. The court concluded that the insurance purchasing requirement in the Triple S / Atofina contract required TripleS to provide insurance for Atofina to the same extent TripleS had insurance coverage. The net result of the court’s holding is that Atofina’s coverage under the Evanston policy is essentially the same as if it were the primary insured. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Looking to the underlying policy to determine the scope of Evanston’s coverage, the court finds that the Admiral CGL policy specifically excludes coverage for Atofina’s sole negligence. Because the Evanston policy covered only the liabilities reflected in the underlying CGL policy, it cannot be reasonably interpreted to cover Atofina’s sole negligence. Atofina asserts coverage under section III.B.6 of the Evanston policy, which does not limit the coverage afforded to an insured to that provided by an underlying policy. Sections III.B.5 and III.B.6 cannot be read in isolation. By its express language, �III.B.5 applies to the facts of this case. “We cannot ignore the limitations in this section simply because section III.B.6 (which contemplates a separate, although equally applicable, set of circumstances) is also implicated.” On this record, the court is unable to determine as a matter of law whether the Jones accident was the product of Atofina’s sole negligence. The Jones family originally sued both Atofina and Triple S, alleging both parties were negligent. In addition, there were allegations in Atofina’s pleadings that Jones himself was contributorily negligent. Triple S was eventually nonsuited, and the Jones’ claim against Atofina was settled with no admission of liability by either party. Thus, without a determination of liability, it is impossible to say whether Atofina’s responsibility for the accident, if any, excluded it from coverage under the Evanston policy, the court states. Since the policy only excludes Atofina’s sole negligence from coverage, the court remands this case to the trial court for a determination of the respective liabilities of the parties. OPINION:Green, J, delivered the court’s opinion.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.