Western District Holds That Employee Exclusion Does Not Preclude Coverage To Additional Insureds For Claim By Named Insured’s Employee
Employees of a subcontractor were injured on a construction project, and they sued the owner and the general contractor. The subcontractor’s excess insurer, Mt. Hawley Insurance Co., disclaimed additional insured coverage to the owner and general contractor based upon an exclusion in its policy for bodily injury to an employee of “any insured arising out of and in the course of … employment by the insured ….” The United States District Court for the Western District of New York held that the exclusion did not preclude such coverage because the injured claimants were not injured in the course of “[e]mployment by the insured” seeking additional insured coverage, i.e., the owner and general contractor. The court distinguished cases holding that an exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of “any insured” arising out of employment by “any insured” precludes coverage so long as the injured claimant is an employee of any insured under the policy. Because the exclusion at issue included language requiring that the injury arise out of employment by “the insured”, the court followed cases holding that “the insured” means the insured seeking coverage. [Reidy Constr. Grp., LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125599 (W.D.N.Y. July 20, 2023).]
Eastern District Finds That Coverage Counsel’s Legal Opinion Is Privileged But Counsel’s Work...
The South African Revenue Service (SARS) says claims its systems have been breached are false and unsubstantiated. This, after social media reports emerged at the weekend that both SARS and the St...