Insurance, reinsurance and self-insured retentions: The basics and beyond

Insurance, reinsurance and self-insured retentions: The basics and beyond

Segalla, Thomas F

Insurance, Reinsurance and Self-Insured Retentions: The Basics And Beyond^


The concepts of reinsurance, self-insured retention and additional insures status have often been considered to be illsive terms. Poor performance1 or significant loss2 can and often does result in a more kneen awareness of these concepts and a tightening of the belt by the insurance industry. In such circumstances insurance and reinsurance carriers will often reevaluate the way they do business and change the focus of available coverages. For example, it had been reported that “recent natural catastophe losses, including the huge storm and flood losses that have hit European insurers during the last two years, are promoting reinsurers to readdess the terms of catadtrophe coverage.”3

Insurance and reinsurance companies become more introspective and specific when determining the nature and extent of coverage, the way they communicate, the way they deny coverage, and what they expect from each other. As a result there has been a growth of “alternetice markets: to place insurance. These are alternatives to the traditional form of insurance and generally include “large self-insureds, associations, group, pools, state funds, risk retention groups, captives, and risk purchasing group.”4

Of course, any time you add additional parties to the traditional insurance process more disputes tend to develop. It is recognized that coverage disputes were once almost non-existent in the reinsurance field.5 When these disputes become a recurring theme, the claims professional and practitioner involved in the traditional insurance field, as well as the field of reinsurance and alternative markets, must not only revisit the basics, but must consider the impact of the present environment on those basics.6

This article will explore the applicable basic principles in reinsurance and self-insured retention situations and highlight some of the more recent developments in these areas of law and practice.



A. The Basic Arrangement

Reinsurance is best conceptualized as “insurance of insurance companies.”7 Stated another way, “the insurance of one insurer (the ‘reinsured’) by another (the ‘reinsurer’) by means of which the reinsured is indemnified for loss under insurance policies issued by the reinsured to the public.”8 In order to fully understand reinsurance, there are certain basic definitions9 that must be considered:

* primary insurer – the company that writes the insurance for and has the relationship with the policyholder/insured.

* reinsurer – provides protection for the reinsured/cedant.

* retrocessionaire – provides a second layer of reinsurance (i.e. reinsurer buys insurance). In this situation the reinsurer can be referred to as a “cedant.”

* retention – the portion of the risk that the ceding insurer retains or assumes.

In addition to these basic concepts, reinsurance involves various plans and underwriting methods.

1. Reinsurance Plans10

Each of the following plans impact how the premiums are treated.

a. Proportional Plans

(1) Quota share/co-insurance. Under this type of plan the loss or risk is shared proportionately. In the life insurance/reinsurance field these are two specific types of plans. Usually a fixed percentage.

– yearly renewable term

– modified coinsurance

(2) Surplus share. The face amount of the policy or the policy limit depending on the type of insurance is shared on a quota basis.

b. Non-Proportional Plans

(1) Stop Loss/Excess Loss. The reinsurer on a particular loss pays an amount above the attachment point.

(2) Stop Loss Aggregate. An aggregate attachment point is defined and the reinsurer pays the claims over that amount.

(3) Loss Trigger/Franchise. If losses exceed the trigger point which is set, the insurer pays all claims down to a particular amount.

(4) Horizontal Excess of Loss. This plan contemplates the adding of additional reinsurers.

c. Fronting Arrangements

(1) Licensed/Unlicensed. This is a reinsurance device used by a company not qualified or licensed to do business in a particular state. The licensed insurer issues a policy with the understanding that another party will pay under the policy.11

2. Reinsurance Contracts12

There are basically two types of reinsurance contracts written by the underwriters:

a. Treaty Reinsurance

Under the pure treaty contract, the reinsured cedes a block of business on an ongoing basis to the reinsurer. In such situations there could be more than one reinsurer each taking a specific amount or percentage of the total liability. Such a sharing could be open and automatic or secretive and blind.13

b. Facultative Reinsurance

This type of reinsurance deals with a specified risk insured by a particular policy or group of policies. The reinsurer individually underwrites the specific risk.14 There is a semi-automatic or automatic variation that allows the reinsurer to cancel whole or part of the risk.15

B. Interpretation of Arrangement

1. Rules of construction

Most claims professionals and practitioners are familiar with the concept that ambiguous provisions contained in an insurance policy are generally interpreted in favor of the insured and against to the insurer. Courts have made it “clear” that when interpreting the reinsurance arrangement, these traditional principles are not applied when two insurers negotiate the certificates and treaties.16 However some courts, even in the reinsurance context, have held that “where an ambiguity exists in a standard-form contract supplied by one of the parties, the well established contra proferentum principle requires that the ambiguity be construed against that party.”17

In addition, a principle that appears to be unique to the interpretation of reinsurance arrangement is that the courts, in interpreting the arrangement, will look to industry usage and practices and all communications and documentation utilized by the cedant and reinsurer.18 Specifically the courts will look to the course of dealing between the parties. As one court noted: “[f]acultative reinsurance agreements are not integrated agreements. It is generally recognized that the insurance agreement consists of the communications exchanged between the parties, as well as the facultative reinsurance certificates.19

Consequently, all the correspondence and communication between the cedant and reinsurers are critically important in determining the terms of reinsurance arrangement. The court in Donaldson made it clear that the exchange of correspondence between the parties can create a binding agreement and the issuance of a certificate of assurance is unnecessary.20 The communication and documents generated between the parties and all submissions, requests, binders, facultative notes and certificates will be reviewed in an attempt to clarify the arrangement.21 Even the “exchange of telephone calls or telefax” can constitute an agreement.22 The courts in reviewing the applicable evidence will use it for the purpose of “clarifying, but not contradicting or changing the terms.”23 Therefore, it is important that representatives of the primary insurer, reinsurer, retrocessionaire, Lloyds syndicate member, reinsurance manager, primary managing general underwriter and broker be aware that their activities will be judged based upon a course of dealing and industry practices. They should be further made aware that those activities could be used to “clarify” the reinsurance relationship.

2. Enforcement of Terms

Once the terms of the arrangement have been defined, the courts will consider basically the following two concepts in determining how and in whose favor the specific terms of the agreement will be enforced.

a. Follow the Fortunes Doctrine

Historically, the follow the fortunes doctrine was referred to as a loss settlement clause. However, most jurisdictions refer to clauses of this nature as the follow the fortune doctrine and defined it as follows:

A loss settlement clause, in the absence of a provision to the contrary, binds the reinsurer to pay its share of the reinsured’s settlement of losses under an original insurance unless:

1. The loss is beyond the scope of the insurance as a matter of law; or

2. The loss, in the case of a reinsurance coextensive with underlying insurance, is beyond the scope of the underlying insurance as a matter of law; or

3. The settlement was fraudulent, collusive, in bad faith or otherwise dishonest; or

4. The reinsured failed to take all businesslike steps reasonably necessary to properly and carefully investigate and ascertain the amount of the loss.24

Succinctly stated, a follow the fortune clause requires reinsurers to pay their share of a loss settlement made by the insured if the loss settled was, with respect to liability and damages, reasonably within the scope of the reinsurance arrangement. That is, payments need be made if the loss is covered by the original policy and the reinsurance contract, subject of course, to the foregoing defense. As one court has noted, a loss would be without reinsurance if it was not contemplated by the original insurance policy or if it was expressly excluded by the term of the certificate of reinsurance.25

Another court recently held that in order to avoid its obligation under a follow the fortune clause, the reinsurer must prove that “the reinsured’s gross negligence or bad faith, or that the settlement was not even arguably within the scope of the reinsurance coverage.”26 The follow the fortunes clause does not rewrite the terms of the arrangement. The majority of courts have supported such a conclusion.27

Also of significance is the fact that the courts have held that a follow the fortune clause will not be implied into the insurance contract and there must be an express provision28 that is similar to the following:

The liability of the reinsurer… shall follow that of the company, subjected in all respects to all the terms, conditions and limits of the company’s policy(ies), except when otherwise specifically provided herein or designated as non-concurrent reinsurance in the declarations26

Closely related to a follow the fortune clause is a follow the form clause. It generally provides: “concurrency between the policy of reinsurance and the reinsured policy is presumed, such that a policy of reinsurance will be construed as offering the same terms, conditions and scope of coverage as exists in the reinsured policy. That is, it exists in the absence of explicit language in the policy of reinsurance to the contrary.”30

b. “Uberrimaefidei”

This duty; of utmost good faith, has been described as “a mutual duty each party owes the other. The duty exists with respect to any action necessary or desirable in order to place and maintain both parties within a fair and equitable bargain.”31 It is recognized that “. . . a reinsurer’s obligation to indemnify its cedant pursuant to the follow the fortunes doctrine is conditioned on the good faith exercised by the cedant in its dealing with the reinsurers .32 While there are a varying number of standards applied by the courts, one commentator provides an interesting spectrum and defines three potential standards:33

(1) Highest – cedant subordinates its interests to that of the other party.

(2) Middle – treat your interests as you would treat others.

(3) Lowest – watch out for yourself first, do not conceal and act unfairly.

The type of underwriting, that is the retention amount, could affect the standard to be applied. The doctrine has recently been raised in the context of the cedants failure to disclosure critical information or the making of various misrepresentations about the risk or its own insolvency.34

It is also recognized that the reinsurer owes the cedant a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Recently, in Commercial Union Insurance v. Seven Province Insurance Co.,35 the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the reinsurer’s conduct, consisting of rising multiple, shifting defenses (many unsubstantiated) in a lengthy pattern of foot-dragging and stringing Commercial Union along, with the intent of pressuring Commercial Union to compromise its claims,36 constituted a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

C. Other Obligations of Parties

The typical reinsurance arrangement involves the underlying insured, the reinsured and reinsurer. In order to understand the reinsurance relationship, an understanding of the obligation among and between these parties is necessary.

1. Obligations of Reinsured to Reinsurer

Over and above the doctrines and duties discussed above, the reinsured is required to do the following:

a. Notice of Claim

Most reinsurance arrangements require that the reinsured provide the reinsurer with prompt notice.37 The courts have not precisely defined what is considered prompt notice and what should trigger the notice. The courts have indicated that the timeliness of the notice is judged by an objective standard38 and that custom and usage in the reinsurance industry judge the nature and reasonableness of the notice,39 The traditional view was that the reinsurer was not required to show prejudice in order to prevail on a late notice claim.40 However, the recent majority view requires that the reinsurer show that it has been prejudicial.41 Courts have held that there must be some “tangible economic injury” to the reinsurer.42 Similarly, courts have decided that a cedant’s bad faith can be a substitute for the prejudice requirement – – simple negligence is not enough.

b. Underwriting and Claims Handling

It is consistently recognized that the cedant must exhibit competent underwriting and claims handling and specifically that it must act “honestly and [has] taken all proper and businesslike steps” in investigating and resolving the claim.43 It appears most courts require more than the mere negligence in the handling of a claim in order for the reinsurer to rescind the agreement. For example, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals requires that the “misadjustment” be as a result of gross negligence or reckless conduct.44

The reinsurer under the follow the fortunes doctrine “cannot second guess the good faith liability determinations made by its reinsured, or the reinsured’s good faith decision to waive defenses to which it may be entitled.”45 However, what happens if the reinsurer becomes involved in defending the loss or in the claims handling process. In Venetsanos v. Zucker, Facher & Zucker-46 the court held:

We recognize and endorse the general rule that an original insured does not enjoy a right of direct action against a true reinsurer. It is settled that an ordinary treaty of reinsurance merely indemnifies the primary insurer against loss rather than against liability.47

The general rule changes when:

… the conduct of the reinsurer demonstrates that it takes charge of and manages the defense of suits against the original insured, the reinsurer may be held to be a ‘privy’ to the action. In such case, . . . the insured [has] been allowed to proceed directly against the reinsurer.48

The extent of the reinsurer’s involvement that will trigger the change of the general rule is difficult to predict and one commentator has noted that “[alt some level of involvement, reinsurers share the cedant’s obligation to the insured handle claims in a fair and efficient fashion. The point at which this takes place, however, is not yet clear.”49

2. Obligations of Reinsurer to Reinsured

Generally, the obligations of reinsurer are defined and governed by the reinsurance arrangement. Specifically, the reinsurer arrangement is one of indemnity and the reinsurer owes nothing to the reinsured until the claim has been paid.50 In International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Fireman 5 Fund Insurance Co.,51 the court held that the burden of proof is on the reinsured to establish that the reinsurer is liable under the reinsurance contract. Once the reinsured has met its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the reinsurer to show there is an exception or defense to coverage.52

Traditionally under an indemnity agreement, the reinsurer in addition to the amount of loss is required to pay the reinsured a proportional share of expenses incurred by the reinsured and related to the defense and claim handling of the underlying claim.53 Recently, in TIG Premier Insurance Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.54 the court considered this issue of whether a reinsured under a facultative reinsurance agreement was entitled to recover expenses in addition to the limits. The court, in distinguishing two New York cases and deciding the issue under California law, held there were questions of fact as to whether the meaning of the certificate could be used to include the reimbursement of expenses.55

3. Liability of Reinsurer to Policyholder

Courts have traditionally held that “an insured does not have a direct right of action against a reinsurer, since the reinsurance contract is only one of underwriting to the original insurer.”56 The basis for such holdings is that privity of contract exists only between the reinsurer and the reinsured.

There is no privity between the reinsurer and the original insured/policyholder. Specifically, it has been stated:

[A] contract of reinsurance being one between the reinsurer and the insurer/reinsured, absent language in the policy indicating the reinsurer’s intent to be directly liable to the insured, the reinsurer has no obligation to the original insured which cannot claim the status of third party beneficiary of the reinsurance contract.57

It is recognized that the contract can be drafted to operate in favor of the insured and provide by a “cut through” clause that the original insured has a direct action.58 Also, the course of dealing or custom and practice can alter the general rule. This is especially true where the reinsurer becomes involved in the claims process.59

D. Discovery Issues

Several courts have recently treated the issue of whether the communications between the reinsured and reinsurer are protected as extrinsic evidence, privilege or work product. Further, the courts have been filled with discovery challenges between reinsureds and reinsurers.60 A complete discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this article; however, it should be noted that most jurisdictions subscribe to the “common interest doctrine” that permits parties who possess common legal interests to share and exchange attorneyclient privilege information without that information losing its protected stakes.61 The doctrine also applies to the reinsurance arrangement.62

A claimant in a bad faith action against its insurer will seek disclosure of communications between the reinsured and reinsurer. Two recent cases supply some guidance in this area. In Young v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,63 a bad faith claimant sought communication between the reinsured and reinsurer pertaining to reserve information. In noting that the information requested was extrinsic evidence, the court allowed discovery because it might aid in interpreting the meaning of the terms in the CGL policies.64 The reinsured sought to protect communications with its reinsurer in the case of Front Royal Insurance Co. v. Gold Players, Inc.65 In holding that the documents were created in the ordinary course of business under the contractual obligation between the insurer and reinsurer and not prepared in anticipation of litigation, the court ruled they were not protected under the work product doctrine.66

E. Allocation

The disputes that arise between the reinsured and reinsurer over the allocation payments have generally been in environmental and mass tort litigation. The case of Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Seven Provinces Insurance Co.67 raises the key issues that must be addressed when seeking to determine whether the allocation method selected is proper. In the typical case the reinsured will settle the past and future claims and in arriving at a settlement figure will choose to settle for commercial reasons. That figure will not necessarily be based on actual liability and may not involve each policy period. As one commentator noted:

Reinsurers may object… that the reinsured has singled out policy years in which the reinsurance retention was lowest, or that the reinsured’s settlement artificially minimized the number of occurrences, all in order to reduce retained loss and maximize the indemnity payment from reinsurers.68

In determining whether the allocation is enforceable, the courts will look at “whether the allocation of the settlement to reinsurers was rational, reasonable, fair and transparent with regard to liability and calculation of damages, as well as, to whether the particular portion of the losses allocated are reasonably shown to he within the scope of reinsurance.”69

F. The Future

One merely has to review the areas in the reinsurance field that have been recently addressed by the courts to determine what future issues will form the basis of challenges to the traditional reinsurance concepts.

1. Is there a fiduciary duty between the cedant and reinsurer?70

2. Can the reinsured sue the reinsurer’s assignee under an assumption agreement?71

3. Does the reinsurer have the right to setoff in the liquidation of the reinsured?72

4. Do the policyholder and accident victims have a direct action against the reinsurer?73

5. Can reinsurer’s conduct be considered Unfair Trade Practice?74

6. Can a reinsurer be liable for bad faith to the underlying insured?75

It is recommended that the claims professional review these key case developments and updates to determine what is around the comer. This will allow them to adjust to the ever-changing climate of reinsurance.



A. Generally

The number of entities choosing some sort of insurance “out-of-the box” has significantly increased in the last twenty years.76 It is generally recognized that such an increase has been determined to be a direct response to a reduction in limits, changes to commercial insurance policy coverage and an increase in premiums.77 “Unavailability” and “unaffordability” can do wonders for creative risk managers.78 Consequently, not only has there been a rise in the use of traditional self-insurance retention programs, there has been a development in a hybrid of these types of insurance arrangements.79 These arrangements combine some sort of self-insurance retention where the company retains a portion of the risk with traditional insurance – primary, and excess insurance, umbrella insurance. The claims professional and practitioner should be aware, however, that courts and commentators often use these terms interchangeably and this can result in inconsistent interpretations. As one commentator noted: “courts frequently treat deductible and self-insured retentions as interchangeable terms, so descriptions of policies at issue in decided cases may characterize these policies inaccurately.”80

While this portion of the article will concentrate on self-insurance retention plans and deductibles, the individuals and entities involved in this area of insurance practice must be aware of certain standard definitions.81

* Pure self-insurance. This is the complete absence of any type of insurance. The entity is considered “bare.” As a practical matter, most companies cannot afford to face catastrophic losses and significant litigation that can result in serious financial loss and bankruptcy; therefore, this is not usually used.

* Self-insured retention. Under this concept an entity agrees to be responsible for all the amount of the claim up to a specified sum and thereafter various layers of insurance become involved.

* Fronting Policies. Under this plan there is a complete retention of the risk by the entity. The obligations of the insurer come into play when the entity is unable to pay a loss sustained by a third party. Up until that point the insured fulfills the function of an insurer – adjust the loss and agrees to pay the insured for any payment it makes. These policies are required by many states in order for the “selfinsured” to meet governmental insurance requirements.

* Retrospective Rated Policies. Program of this nature operated based on the insured’s loss history. Based upon the insured’s claims experience during the prior year, the insurance company “retrospectively” sets the premium charged. This can result in either a rebate to the insured where the actual losses are less than the estimation or an additional premium if the losses exceed the estimation made by the insurer.

As noted below, depending on the plan that is chosen, there are some critical implications to the coverages that may be available to insureds and precisely what portion of the risk will be the responsibility of one or more insurance companies. The availability of other “primary insurance” (i.e. standard forms of insurance); “excess insurance” (i.e. insurance immediately over primary covers which can be several levels); “umbrella insurance” (i.e. excess above specific primary coverage and supplement coverage for other risks not covered by the primary) and “reinsurance” (i.e. insurance for all or part of the cedant/reinsured’s primary coverage) will determine who will pay what.

B. Differences.

What are the differences between a self-insurance retention and a deductible?82 The analysis given by the Brown & Riding Insurance Service article takes into consideration defense obligations; settlement/payment obligations; situations where there are multiple insurers and continuous losses (i.e. allocation). Another, issue that must be considered is the impact of “other insurance” clauses contained in various policies.

* Defense Obligations. When dealing with a deductible situation, the insurer controls the defense and is governed by general coverage principles that the duty to defend is greater than the duty to indemnify. The insurer is responsible for defense costs and counsel fees, unless there is a barring limits provision in the policy which “eats” into the indemnification limits. In contrast, under a situation where self insured retention is involved, the insured is obligated to defend its own interests and administer the claim until the retention limit is exhausted. It is generally recognized that the insurer can monitor the insured’s claims handling, which must be done in good faith. When an insurer is concerned that there may be collusive activity between the insured and an implied third party, the insurer should closely monitor the insured’s activities and retain its own counsel in the appropriate case. Defense costs are the responsibility of the insured until the retention is exhausted.83

* Settlement. When considering the rights and obligations of the insured and insurer concerning the settlement of the claim, the focus is on whose consent is required. In a deductible situation, the insurer can settle the case without the insured’s consent, can pay the settlement amount and then collect its deductible from the insured. There does not appear to be any case law on point, however, it is generally understood that an insured can settle within its retention without consulting the insurer. The reverse proposition, the insurer settling within the retention without the insured’s consent, is not allowed. When, however, the loss has a value in excess of the self-retained limit, an insurer should be able to settle the case provided its actions are in good faith and the settlement is reasonable.84 The insolvency of the insured can also have a significant impact on payment obligations. When the policy has a deductible, the insolvency of the insured does not limit the obligation of the insurer to pay the loss; whereas, in a self-insured retention situation, the insurer is not obligated to drop down and cover the insured’s retention obligation.85

* Allocation/Continuous Loss. A complete analysis of the allocation issue is not within the scope of this article.86 Any analysis of the issues involved in a continuous loss where there may be multiple claims arising out of the same “occurrence” generally turns on how the policy defines “occurrence.” A policy can be drafted to provide a deductible per claim and in such cases several deductibles can be triggered for the same claim.87 If the insurance arrangement contains a self-insured retention, the insured in a situation where there are multiple primary policies can “target” one insurer and allow that insurer to obtain contribution from other insurers. Also, in the appropriate situation the issue of whether stacking of the self– retained limits is allowed must be considered. The issues have best been described as follows:

For policies that have deductibles or SIRs, how are they to be applied? Insurers argue that they should be applied 100% to each triggered policy; however, policyholders contend that only the portion of the deductible equal to the percentage of the entire loss attributable to that policy year should be applied. If deductibles or SIRs are applied at full value and there is horizontal stacking, the policyholder may have to pay significant sums before it accesses any insurance.88

As with any type of analysis of this nature, the wording of the policy must be clear and unambiguous.

C. Other Insurance Issues89

The concept of “other insurance” comes into play when two or more companies insure the same interest and the same entity during the same policy period. Concurrent policies are involved, as opposed to consecutive policies. The typical concurrent insurance situation exists when the driver of a non-owned automobile is a named insured under his own policy and is covered under the omnibus clause contained in the insurance policy of the owner. In such situations, the insured should tender the claim to call concurrent insurers and the loss is allocated between the insurers. There are traditionally four types of “other insurance” clauses.

* Pro Rata Clause. Such a clause provides that if other insurance exists, the insurer will pay its pro rata share in relation to the insurers’ respective liability limits. In other words, this would be the proportion one insurer’s policy limits bears to the aggregate limit of all other valid and collectible insurance.90

* Excess Clause. The insurer’s expense is limited to the amount of the loss that exceeds all other valid and collectible insurance and its total exposure is limited by the limits of the policy containing the excess clause.91

* Escape Clauses. Simply stated this type of clause generally provides that the insurer is relieved from any obligation to the insured if other coverage is available.92

*Tailor-Made Clauses. It is extremely difficult to characterize these types of clauses because they are specifically drafted to cover specific types of risks and are meant to address specific requirements of an insured. Generally, this type of clause is a combination of the other three.93

How does the other insurance clause of one policy effect a policy that contains a selfinsured retention? As noted above, “other insurance” refers to the existence of another insurer that insures the same risk for the benefit of the same entity during the same policy period.94 The question initially stated is whether the self-insurance retention constitutes other valid and collectible insurance for the purpose of the other insurance clause.

The majority rule has been stated by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in the case of Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. H & W Motor Express Co.95 There the court held that the retained limit is not coverage. A significant number of other jurisdictions follow the view that self-insurance constitutes insurance within the meaning of an automobile liability policy.96 Courts have looked at various factors in choosing whether to follow the majority or minority rule. It has been noted that since insurance is a mechanism for the transfer of risk from one person or organization to another different entity, the minority rule is not “analytically sound.” Such issues as to whether the relationship resembles insurance; what is a lay person’s understanding; what do the statutory rules provide; legislative history and public policy considerations come into play.97 Consequently, it is extremely difficult to predict how a jurisdiction that has not decided the issue might rule.


As discussed above, most parties intending to protect themselves from liability on a construction project will not only require that the subordinate party indemnify and hold them harmless, but also that they be made an additional insured under the indemnitor’s CGL policy.

Additional insured status is meant to help more clearly define the parties’ obligations and responsibilities. For the company seeking protection, additional insured status is supposed to be the next best thing to buying insurance, and in some ways it is better. For example, the additional insured, theoretically, has direct access to the named insured’s insurance company. As a result, the additional insured may not need to go through the named insured in order to obtain the benefits of insurance. Additionally, as a result of going through another party’s policy, it may enjoy a better loss experience on its own policy which translates to lower insurance costs for the additional insured. Of course, the indemnitee feels more comfortable with an indemnitor’s obligation to indemnify if the indemnitor can back up his obligation with insurance.

Other advantages for the additional insured include preventing subrogation, avoiding some exclusions in the additional insured’s own policy, and obtaining personal injury coverage that may be unavailable under first party contractual liability coverage. On the other hand, those positives for the additional insured can result in substantial negatives for the named insured. An additional insured will certainly increase the named insured’s exposure to risk. Additionally, an insurer’s money spent on indemnifying and defending other parties can erode policy limits.

Courts will afford an insurance policy’s provisions and terms their plain and ordinary meaning to the extent they are unambiguous, and will generally not extend or alter coverage beyond its terms. As a result, the interpretation of an additional insured’s rights and obligations under the policy is determined by the policy’s phraseology, and the initial focus should be on those terms. Including an additional insured on an already existing policy could have a significant effect on the type, scope, and limit of coverage provided by the policy. Additional insureds are faced with questions regarding policy limits, exclusions that may avoid coverage, the possibility that their own policies may be triggered to act as coprimary or even primary, and the additional insured’s general lack of control over the other party’s insurance program. Both additional and named insureds must be aware of when aggregate limits under the policy must be shared by all insured parties.

A. Direct v. Vicarious Liability

Insurers often take a position that the additional insured has no right to expect coverage for its own negligence, especially if the accident arose out of activities unrelated to the named insured’s performance. Not surprisingly, courts attempt to enforce the parties’ intentions, but such intentions are not always clear. The best way to avoid this problem is to be certain, from the inception, that there is a clear written understanding among the contracting parties, as well as the carrier, as to what liabilities are intended to be covered under the additional insured language.

Many courts will look to the language of the underlying contract when determining the extent of coverage. As a result, the court is more likely to find coverage for the additional insured’s own direct negligence if the underlying agreement to procure includes insurance to protect against exactly that. If, for example, the policy simply names a party as an additional insured, without more, that party is more likely to be covered for its own direct negligence.

Courts considering public policy may draw a distinction between agreements to obtain insurance and agreements to indemnify. While agreements to indemnify for one’s own liability may be contrary to public policy and thus precluded by statute, insurance that covers the direct liability of an additional insured is less likely to be found unenforceable. An April 1995 article reviewed two oft-cited decisions of a Federal Court in Pennsylvania that resulted in opposite conclusions regarding coverage for additional insureds.98 As the authors of that article noted, the two cases highlight the importance of the policy language itself on the determination as to whether the additional insured is covered for its own direct liability. In Harbor Insurance Co. v Lewis,99 a train operated by the Reading Railroad ran over a young boy in an area near a fence that the City of Philadelphia was found to have negligently maintained. The jury found both defendants jointly and severally liable. The city then sought a declaration that it was covered for the amount of the verdict under the additional insured provision of the railroad’s policy. The endorsement provided that he city was an additional insured ” . . . but only to the extent of liability resulting from occurrences arising out of negligence of [the named insured].”100

While the city argued that the accident arose out of the negligence of the railroad, the carrier argued that the endorsement provided coverage only for the city’s vicarious liability and not for liability resulting from its own negligence. The court agreed with the carrier and ruled that the city was not covered, because the additional insured endorsement provided coverage only for vicarious liability. Important to the court’s conclusion was the fact that the endorsement was issued without the payment of an additional premium.

In the other case, Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,101 the court reached the opposite conclusion. In that case, PECO contracted with a tree company to provide PECO tree trimming services. The contract required the tree company to obtain a certificate of insurance naming PECO as an additional insured on the tree company’s general liability policy. The agreement also contained a provision requiring the tree company to indemnify PECO for liability arising out of the tree company’s acts or omissions, except to the extent PECO was solely negligent. An employee of the tree company was injured and sued PECO, who brought a declaratory judgment action against both the tree company and the tree company’s carrier, Nationwide. The additional insured language in that policy provided that PECO and its employees were “added as Additional Insureds for any work performed by The Davey Tree Expert Company on their behalf.”102

Nationwide relied on the Lewis decision in arguing that PECO was only insured for vicarious liability. The court distinguished the Lewis case, however, holding that the policy in that case specifically limited coverage to liability arising out of the negligence of the named insured. It found that the policy naming PECO as an additional insured was broader, and should be read to include coverage for all liability arising in connection with the tree company’s work, including PECO’s own negligence. As indicated by the authors of that article, these decisions from the same court signify not only the diversity of opinion in this issue, but also the importance of the policy language used.

B. Policy Language Controls

A complex analysis of each jurisdiction’s treatment of the issue is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, a few representative cases indicate that the precise language of the “additional insured” endorsement can make a difference with respect to whether a court ultimately finds that the policy covers the additional insured for its own direct conduct.

Many courts find that the “additional insured” language in a given policy is ambiguous. Some courts look to extrinsic evidence to determine the intention of the parties to the contract, for example, Maryland and Nevada. However, other courts generally will simply construe an ambiguity strictly against the insurer and find in favor of the coverage which the additional insured sought, for example New York. As a result, it is very important to clearly provide in plain and ordinary terms the precise parameters for coverage to the “additional insured.”

1. Coverage for Additional Insured’s Direct Liability

a. “Arising out of”

Many courts find that the phrase “arising out of ‘ clearly relates to causation, but that its terms are “both broad and vague.”103 As a result, to the extent the additional insured provision speaks to liability or damages “arising out of the named insured’s conduct, it is a good bet that the court will find coverage for the additional insured’s direct liability. For example:

* The phrase “arising out of… operations performed for the additional insured … by the named insured” covers additional insured for its own negligence.104

* The policy provided that additional insured would be covered “only with respect to liability arising out of operations performed for [additional insured] by or on behalf of named insured.” The court found that coverage to the additional insured was not limited to additional insured’s vicarious liability for named insured’s negligence. The court found the policy ambiguous, and further held that liability that is not clearly excluded from coverage is presumed to have been included.105

C. Other Phraseology

Examples of other types of language found to reflect an intention to cover additional insured for its own negligence are:

* The policy included “as an additional insured, any person or organization when required to be so named but only as respects operations of the named insured.”106 The court found that additional insured is covered for its own direct liability resulting from the project, finding that “the policy language addresses the factual context in which the liability of the named insured arises, not the legal theory on which it is based.”107

A “‘Persons Insured’ provision is amended to include any person, organization, trustee or estate for whom the named insured has contracted in writing to procure liability insurance, provided: (a) The coverage afforded to such person or organization shall apply to only the extent required by the agreement, but in no event for broader coverage than afforded by this policy. . .”108 Again, the court found that the intention was to insure the additional insured for all liability resulting from the contract entered into with the named insured, and not simply its vicarious liability for the named insured’s conduct.

* The policy named additional insured “only as respects their interest as they may appear and work being performed for them by [the named insured].” The court found it unreasonable to assume that the subcontractor would agree to procure liability insurance for all of the general contractor’s operations. However, the court found it reasonable to conclude that the general intention was to free the general contractor from any liability or increased risk resulting from the subcontractor’s presence on the premises. An employee of the subcontractor was injured by the general contractor’s direct negligence. The court found that the general contractor had coverage under the subcontractor’s policy.109

D. No Coverage for Direct Negligence of Additional Insured

On the other hand, the following cases are representative of those in which the courts found that the policy adequately limited coverage for the insured to vicarious liability for the conduct of the named insured:

* Additional insured named “but only with respect to acts or omissions of the named insured in connection with the named insured’s operations.”110 Named insured’s employee was injured and alleged that additional insured was solely negligent. The court found that the additional insured was not covered under the named insured’s policy, finding that the most appropriate construction of the policy was that the additional insured was covered under the policy only when the negligent acts of the named insured caused the loss. The court found that to interpret the endorsement in a way which found coverage for the additional insured’s direct liability would ransform the “but only” language into “arising out of.”

* The policy provided that “additional insureds are covered under this policy as required by written contract, but only with respect to operations performed by or for” named insured. The court found that the policy does not cover all of the additional insured’s liability no matter how incurred, but does cover its direct liability resulting from the project. 111

The policy insures the additional insured “but only with respect to liability arising out of (1) operations performed for the additional insured by the named insured at the location designated above or (2) acts or omissions of the additional insured in connection with his general supervision of such operations.” The policy also contains an exclusion for “bodily injury or property damage arising out of any act or omission of the additional insured or any of his employees, other than general supervision of work performed for the additional insured by the named insured.” A jury in the underlying action found that the additional insured was solely negligent in that its liability did not result from a failure to supervise the named insured/contractor. In a declaratory judgment action the court held that there was no coverage for the additional insured under the poliCy.112

* Additional insured clause provides coverage “with respect to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured,” but coverage “shall not apply to damages arising out of the negligence of the Additional Insured.” “I The court found that the policy clearly intended to apply only to the vicarious liability of the additional insured.

E. Other Issues Involving Coverage for Additional Insureds

1. The Employee Exclusion

Additional insured status may also exclude coverage for certain liability. The so-called employee exclusion precludes a policy holder from recovering for injury to its own employees. Assume again that a subcontractor’s employee is injured on a construction project as a result of the general contractor’s negligence, and the general is an additional insured on the subcontractor’s liability policy. If the subcontractor’s employee sues the general and the general tenders the defense to the subcontractor’s carrier, does the employee exclusion preclude coverage?

The courts have generally disagreed about whether a policy prevents any employer from recovery for injuries to its own employee. Likewise there is disagreement as to whether every insured is precluded from receiving coverage for liability resulting from injury to the employee of any insured, or whether the exclusion applies to any insured, but only for liability arising out of injury to the employee of a named insured. Ultimately, a close inspection of the policy language will generally determine a carrier’s obligations. Does the exclusion speaks to the “named insured’s employees,” or to the “insured’s employees”? Does it make a distinction?

2. The Effect of “Other Insurance.”

Both the carrier and the additional insured must also consider the “other insurance” issue. A prudent party will require that the indemnitor’s carrier endorse its policy so that it is primary and any other policies, including the indemnitee’s/additional insured’s policy, shall be excess only.

The added coverage that the party contemplates as an additional insured may not exist if the additional insured has another policy covering the same liabilities. That is because an insurer will often claim that its coverage for the additional insured is only “in excess of’ the coverage provided by the additional insured’s own policy. If the parties and their carriers do not make clear the manner in which they intend to prioritize coverages, a battle of “other insurance” clauses can, and generally does, ensue. It is because each policy’s “other insurance” clause generally attempts to shift the loss to other insurers. The California form indemnity agreement cited at the beginning of this article specifically requires that the indemnitor’s policy concede primary coverage.

3. Certificates of Insurance

Parties to a construction relationship routinely require certificates of insurance as proof that appropriate coverages have been put in place. Of course, certificates of insurance, when issued by the insurance company, are useful because they can state the limits of the policy and offer some security for the certificate holder.

However, if the certificate is not issued directly by the insurer, it cannot guarantee that the information essential to an additional insured – that the named insured has met all the conditions to insure the additional insured is covered, and that the represented coverages actually exist. Additionally, it is important to note that the certificate is not the policy. It can he a representation, but also a misrepresentation, of insurance coverage. To the extent the certificate is not issued by or on behalf of the carrier, it generally will not bind the carrier to the coverages the certificate represents as having been secured.

4. Joint vs. Separate Representation

For the carrier, joint representation of, for example, a named insured/subcontractor and additional insured/general contractor may be attractive. This is particularly so if the subcontractor is obligated to indemnify the general contractor for any liability which results. In many respects their interests will be aligned and counsel can represent both. That leads to advantages for all parties. The insurer, which does not have to assign two sets of counsel, can save on the defense costs it incurs on behalf of its insureds. Also, each of the insureds has the benefit of the strategy afforded to the other, as well as the benefit of forming a united front. This makes the underlying plaintiff’s job all the more difficult.

However, due to the complex facts and issues which often surround the construction, supervision, inspection and management among the parties to a construction project, there are potential conflicts of interest between the parties. Because counsel’s role is to zealously represent the interest of the client, counsel cannot represent multiple insureds if there are any potential conflicts of interest. And, as a general rule, any time two insureds are parties of the same litigation and there is any potential conflict of interest whatsoever, each is entitled to independent counsel.

5. Anti-subrogation

Subrogation is an equitable doctrine that entitles an insurer to stand in the shoes of its insured to seek indemnification from third parties whose wrongdoing causes a loss that the insurer is bound to reimburse. However, as a general rule an insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered. Public policy requires this exception to the general rule both to prevent the insurer from passing an incidence of loss to its own insured and to guard against the potential for conflict of interest that may affect the insurer’s incentive to provide a vigorous defense for its insured.

As a result, the insurer that issues a single insurance policy providing for an additional insured may not bring an action against that additional insured to recover monies that the insurer paid on behalf of its vicariously liable named insured. Nor may the insurer bring an action against its named insured for monies paid on behalf of a vicariously liable additional insured, because, in essence, it is the very risk for which the parties are covered.”‘

Consider the original hypothetical. The injured employee sues the general contractor that is named as an additional insured on the subcontractor/employer’s liability policy. The general commences a third-party action against the sub for contribution or indemnification. The sub then moves to dismiss the third-party claim based upon the anti-subrogation doctrine. What effect? If the result would be that the subcontractor’s policy affords coverage for the loss to the general contractor as an additional insured, the third-party claim will likely be barred because the same insurer, under the same policy, intended to cover that very risk.

There do appear to be exceptions to the anti-subrogation rule. One exception occurs when the policy contains exclusions that render it inapplicable to the loss as it pertains to one insured or the other. For example, under most general liability policies, the “bodily injury to an employee” exclusion will preclude coverage to the subcontractor/employer, but perhaps not to the general contractor. However, the subcontractor’s employer’s liability carrier will afford coverage to the subcontractor for such liability. In that case, the antisubrogation rule probably will not apply.116


A clear understanding of the interrelationship of the foregoing principles will enable the claims professionals and counsel to assess the appropriate mechanisms needed to shift liability. While the plaintiff will merely focus on collecting damages from the primary defendant and its insurer, the defendant and its insurer will attempt to shift liability on to any excess insurer, reinsurer or the third-party defendant and its insurer. Out of necessity the third-party defendant and its insurer will seek any options to shift their exposure. When faced with significant exposures, each of the parties in this chain will be required to follow various procedural and legal requirements to achieve the desired result. Unfortunately, the failure to strictly comply with these requirements can result in the failure to shift liability, which will result in the over payment of claims or the forfeiture of insurance coverage. Many of the traditional principles take on a new life when insurers and insureds are faced with catastrophic damages. Absent an overall comprehension of what is necessary to protect and perfect one’s rights can result in receivership or insolvency – a serious consequence for one misstep.


2 Carolyn Aldred, Reinsurer Seeks More Precise ‘Event ‘Definition, Bus. INS., March 26, 2001 at 1.

3 Id.

4 M. Patricia Casey, The Relationship Between Alternative Markets and Reinsurers: The Reinsurance Perspective, 28 THE BRIEF 26 (Summer 1999).

5 Milton Thurm, Allocation and Other Reinsurance Issues, (unpublished manuscript on file with author).

6 Edward J. Ozog et al., The Unresolved Conflict Between Traditional Principles of Reinsurance and Enforcement of the Terms ofthe Contractual Undertaking, 35 ToRT & INS. L.J. 91 (1999); Larry P. Schiffer, New Risks for the New Economy-What Does it Mean for Reinsurers?, MEALEY’s LITIG. REP.: REINSURANCE, Vol 11, No 9, Feb. 8, 2001.

7 HENRY T. KRAMER, The Nature ofReinsurance, in REINSURANCE 1, 5 (R. Strain, ed. 1980) at 5; BARRY R. OSTRAGER BL THOMAS R. NEWMAN, HANDBOOK ON INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES 15.01 (10th ed. 2000).

8 Id.

9 Thomas G Kabele, Reinsurance Problems in Personal Accident, Workers Compensation and Other Lines ofBusiness, MEALEY’s LITIG. REP.: REINSURANCE, Vol 11, No 7, August 17, 2000.

11 Id. This article provides and excellent technical discussion of basic definitions, plans and underwriting concepts; see also OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 15.02[al,[b] & [c].

11 OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 15.03[c]; see also Robert M. Hall, Enforcing Net Retention Clauses In Reinsurance Contracts, MEALEY’S LmG. REP.: REINSURANCE, Vol 11, No 15, December 14, 2000.

12 Id. at 15.03; Kabele, supra note 9.

13 In re Midland Ins. Co., 590 N.E.2d 1186, 1188 (N.Y. 1992); Old Reliable Fire Ins. Co. v. Castle Reins. Co., 665 F.2d 239, 241 (8th Cir. 1981).

14 Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 4 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993).

15 Compagnie de Reassurance d’ile de France v. New England Reins. Corp., 57 F.3d 56,64-65, 74-76 (lst Cir. 1995).

16 William C. Hoffman, “Custom and Usage” in Reinsurance Contracts 1997-1999 Recent Developments and Outlook, MEALEY’s LITIG. REP.: REINSURANCE, Vol 10, No 19, February 10, 2000; Loblaw, Inc. v. Employer’s Liab. Assur. Corp., 446 N.YS. 2d 743, 745 (App. Div. 1981), aff’d, 442 N.E.2d 438, (N.Y 1982); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 481 F.2d 948, 954 (2d Cir. 1973).

17 Westchester Resco Co. v. New England Reins. Corp., 818 F.2d 2, 4 (2d Cir. 1987); see also, Travelers Ins. Co. v. Central Nat’l Ins. Co., 733 F. Supp. 522, 528 (D.Conn. 1990) (where the court held against the reinsurer because it drafted the agreement); OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 15.03 [b].

18 United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 53 F. Supp. 2d 632 (S.D.N.Y 1999).

19 Id. at 28; see also Donaldson v. United Community Ins. Co., 741 So. 2d 676 (La. Ct. App. 1999); see generally, COUcH ON INSURANCE 3 d 13:17; see also Hoffman, supra note 16.

20 Donaldson, 741 So. 2d 676.

21 Id.

22 Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Cologne Reinsurance Co., 552 N.E.2d 139, 142 (N.Y 1990).

23 United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 53 F. Supp. 2d 632 (S.D.N.Y 1999); see also, Ozog et al., supra note 6.

24 Ozog et al., supra note 6 (citing William C. Hoffman, Common Law of Reinsurance Law Settlement Clauses, 28 TORT & INs. L.J. 659, 677 (1993)).

25 North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. Co. 52 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1995); see also, Bellefonte Reins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990).

26 Hartford Accid. & Indemn. Co. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 98 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Conn. 2000).

27 See Am. Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Co. for Prop. & Cas. Ins., 697 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1982) (holding that despite a follow the fortune clause, the reinsurer is only liable for a loss of the kind reinsured).

28 Michigan Twp. Participating Plan v. Federal Ins. Co., 592 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999); Int’l Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 868 F. Supp. 917 (S.D. Ohio 1994); see generally, Hoffman, supra note 16.

29 OSTRAGER & NEwmAN, supra note 7, at 16.01 [d].

30 Id.

31 Kramer, supra note 7, at 9; see generally, M. Patricia Casey, The Relationship Between Alternative Markets and Reinsurers: The Reinsurance Perspective, 28 THE BRIEF 26 (Summer 1999).

32 Ozog et al., supra note 6; see also, Kabele, supra note 9.

33 Kabele, supra note 9.

34 Compagnie de Reassurance d’ile de France v. New England Reins. Corp., 57 F.3d 56,64-65, 74-76 (lst Cir. 1995); Michigan Nat’l Bank- Oakland v. Am. Centennial Ins. Co., 674 N.E.2d 313 (N.Y 1996); see Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Excess Ins. Co., 992 F. Supp. 278, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (for the general statement of the law; however, note that the complaint was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds at 62 F. Supp.2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)): see also Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Seven Provinces Ins. Co., 9 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D. Mass. 1998).

35 217 EM 33 (Ist Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1146 (2001).

36 Id.

37 Zenith Ins. Co., v. Employers Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 1998); Christiania Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 979 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1992).

38 For a general discussion of late notice, see OSTRANGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7 at section 16.02.

39 Id. at Section 16.02[a].

40 Id. at Section 16.02[b]; Unigrad Sec. Ins. Co. v. N. River Ins. Co.; 762 F. Supp. 566, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), certified questioned answered. 594 N.E. 2d 571 (N.Y. 1992); aff’d in part, re’d in part, 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993).

41. Unigard. 4 F.3d at 10 69.

43 Id.

43 OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 15.04[a]; see generally, Ins. Co. ofAfrica v. Scor (U.K.) Reins. Co., [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 312 (Ct. App. 1984); Am. Marine Ins. Group v. Neptunia Ins. Co., 775 F. Supp. 703, 708 (S.D.N.Y 1991), aff’d, 961 F.2d 372 (2d Cir. 1992).

44 N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. Co., 52 RM 1194 (3d Cir. 1995).

45 Christiania Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 979 F.2d 268, 280 (2d Cir. 1992).

46 638 A.2d 1333 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994).

47 Id. at 1339 (citations omitted).

48 Id.; see also, Keightley v. Republic Ins. Co., 946 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Ct. App. 1997) (opinion was subsequently withdrawn by stipulation of the parties at a rehearing).

49 Robert M. Hall, Reinsurance Coverage of Excess of Policy Limits and Extra Contractual Obligations, MEALEY’s LITIG. REP.: REINSURANCE, Vol 11, No 16, December 28, 2000.

50 See generally, OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 15.04[b].

51 No. 88C320, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022 (N.D. 111. 1992), aff’d, 998 F.2d 504 (7th Cir. 1993).

52 Id.; see also, Charman v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance [ 1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 607.

53 OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 15.04[b].

54 35 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

55 Id. at 351. Compare, Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 4 F.3d 1049, 1071 (2d Cir. 1993) and Bellefonte Reins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 903 F.2d 910, 911 (2d Cir. 1990).

56 Klockner Stadler Hurter v. Ins. Co. of Pa.., 785 F. Supp. 1130, 1133 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).

57 Michigan Nat’l Bank – Oakland v. Am. Centennial Ins. Co., 611 N.YS.2d 506, 511-12 (App. Div. 1994), affd, 674 N.E.2d 313 (N.Y. 1996); see also, Litho Color, Inc. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 991 P.2d 638 (Wash. 1999); Gannon Trucking v. Aon Corp. No. BC 199481 (Cal. Super. April 4, 2000).

58Bruckner-Mitchell, Inc. v. Sun Indem. Co., 82 F.2d 434, 444 (D.C. Cir. 1936).

59 Klockner Stadler Hurter v. Ins. Co. ofPa., 785 F. Supp. 1130, 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); see also, OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 15.04[d].

60 For an excellent discussion of these discovery issues, see Ellen K. Burrows& John H. O’Leary, Discovery and Privilege: Protecting Reinsurance Communication in an Uncertain Legal Landscape, MEALEY’S LITIG. REP.: REINSURANCE, Vol 10, No 12, Oct. 28, 1999.

61 Id.; see also James M. Fischer, The Attorney-Client Privilege Meets the Common Interest Arrangement.” Protecting Confidences While Exchanging Information for Mutual Gain, 16 REv. LITiG. 631, 646 (1997).

62 Minn. School Boards Ass’n Ins. Trust v. Employers Ins. Co., 183 F.R.D. 627 (N.D. 111. 1999); Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 558 A.2d 1091 (Del. Super. Ct. 1989); Durham Indus., Inc. v. N. River Ins. Co., No. 79 Civ. 1705 (RWS), 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15154 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 1980).

63 No. 3:96-CV-1189 (EBB), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6987 (D. Conn. Feb. 16, 1999)

64 Id.

65 187 F.R.D. 252 (WD. Va. 1999).

66 Id.

67 0 F. Supp. 2d 49, 64 (D. Mass. 1998), aff’d 217 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1136 (2001).

68 Hoffman, supra note 16.

69 Id.

70 See United States v. Brennan, 183 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 1999).

71 See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 150 F.3d 545 (6th Cir 1998).

72 See Comm’r of Ins. v. Munich Am. Reins. Co., 706 N.E. 2d 694 (Mass. 1999).

73 See Donaldson v. United Community Ins. Co., 741 So. 2d 676 (La. Ct. App. 1999).

74 See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Seven Provinces Ins. Co., 217 F.3d 33 (Ist Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1136 (2001).

75 See Litho Color, Inc. v. Public Employer’s Ins. Co., 991 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

76 Rory A. Goode, Self-Insurance as Insurance in Liability Policy “Other Insurance” Provisions, 56 WAsH. & LEE L. REv. 1245,1251 (1999).

77 See generally, George L. Priest, The Current Insurance Crisis and Modern Tort Law, 96 YALE L. J. 1521, 1526-27 (1987).

78 Goode. supra note 76, at 1251.

79 Id.

80 William T. Barker, Combining Insurance and Self Insurance: Issues For Handling Insurance and The Decision To Settle, 61 DEF Courts. J. 352 (1994).

81 For a general discussion of these plans see Goode, supra note 76, at 1254-58; see also, Douglas R. Richmond, Issues and Problems in “Other Insurance, “Multiple Insurance and Self Insurance, 22 PEPP. L. REV. 1373 (1995); James M. Fischer, The Presence of Insurance and the Legal Allocation of Risk, 2 CONN. INS. L.J. 1 (1996).

82 For an excellent discussion of the relationship of these two concepts see the article published by Browl & Riding Insurance Services, Inc. (“Brown & Riding”) entitled Self Insured Retentions (SIR) http:/ I ihtrn (last visited 4/9/01).

83 Id.

84 Id.

85 Id.

86 For an excellent discussion of allocation issues, see Nicholas J. Zoogman, Resolving Allocation Problems, presented at the Complex Insurance Claims Seminar conducted by the American Conference Institute, New York, N.Y, May 3 & 4, 2001.

87 Brown & Riding, supra note 82.

88 Id.

89 See generally, Richmond, supra note 81, at 1376-77; Goode, supra note 76, at 1258-59.

90 OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 11.02[a], Richmond, supra note 7, at 11.02[a], Richmond, supra note 81, at 1382-82.

9-1 Id. at 11.02[b].

92 Id. at 11.02[c].

93 Richmond, supra note 81. at 1387-88. For a comparison of policies that contain various clauses, see id. at 1388-89,

84 Goode. supra note 76, at 1260-61.

95 507 N.W.2d 622, 625 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993); For an analysis of the majority rule, see Goode, supra note 76, at 1260.

96 Hillegass v. Landwehr, 499 N.W.2d 652 (Wis. 1993); see Goode, supra note 76, at 1262.

97 OSTRAGER & NEWMAN, supra note 7, at 13.13[b].

98 Harry Sigmier & John J. Reilly, Coverage for Independent Negligence ofAdditional Insureds, FOR THE DEFENSE, April, 1995, at 16.

99 562 F. Supp. 800 (E.D. Pa. 1983).

100 Id. at 802.

101 721 F. Supp. 740 (E.D. Pa. 1989).

102 Id. at 742.

103 Cas. Ins. Co. v. Northbrook Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Northbrook Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 501 N.E.2d 812, 814 (111. App. Ct. 1986).

104 Dayton Beach Park No. I Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 573 N.YS.2d 700, 702 (App. Div. 1991).

105 McIntosh v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 992 F.2d 251 (10th Cir. 1993).

106 Clark v. B&D Inspection Service, 896 F.2d 105, 106 (5th Cir. 1990).

107 Id.

108 Woods v. Dravo Basic Materials Co., 887 F.2d 618, 620 (5th Cir. 1989).

109 Valentine v. Aetna Ins. Co., 564 F.2d 292, 294 (9th Cir. 1977).

110 Consolidation Coal Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 406 F. Supp. 1292, 1294 (WD. Pa. 1976).

111 Saavedra v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., 930 F.2d 1104, 1110 (5th Cir. 1991).

112 First Ins. Co. v. State, 665 P.2d 648, 653 (Haw. 1983).

113 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Glenview Park Dist., 594 N.E.2d 1300, 1302 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 632 N.E.2d 1039 (111. 1994).

114 See, e.g., Pa. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Austin Powder Co., 502 N.E.2d 982 (N.Y 1986).

115 North Star Reinsurance Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 624 N.E.2d 647 (N.Y 1993).





5. Harry Sigmier & John J. Reilly, Coverage for Independent Negligence of Additional Insureds, FOR THE DEFENSE, Apr. 1995, at 16.

6. Eugene R. Anderson et al., A Sword and a Shield – Living at Ease With An Additional Insured Endorsement, RISK MANAGEMENT at 53 (Nov. 1991).

7. Lewis Herman & Nancy F. Wang, Liability and Indemnification in the Construction Industry, 56 DEF. CouNS. J. 403 (1989).

8. James Frankel & Kenneth Lazaruk, Preventing Legal Problems During Construction, RISK MANAGEMENT 35 (Nov. 1991).

9. Mark Pomerantz, Note, Recognizing the Unique Status of Additional Named Insureds, 53 FORDHAM L. REv. 117 (1984).

Thomas F. Segalla

Submitted by the author on behalf of the FDCC Insurance Coverage Section.

Thomas F Segalla is a senior trial partner in the firm of Goldberg Segalla LLP where he is chair of the firm’s Insurance Litigation Department. He is a cum laude graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School. He is a member of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel (FDCC) (Chair of the Toxic Tort and Environmental Section and Vice Chair of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section), the Defense Research Institute (DR[) (Past Chair of the Insurance Law Committee), the International Association of Defense Counsel, member of the Environmental Committee and New York State Bar Association where he serves on various insurance and environmental committees. Mr.

Segalla has lectured and published extensively for these professional organizations in the field of insurance coverage, labor law and premises liability. Presently he is acting as a consultant on the revision of the renowned insurance treatise Couch on Insurance 3d, where he is providing practice commentaries to the analytical discussion. Mr. Segalla is also on the Board of Editorial Consultants for the monthly Bad Faith Update published by Matthew Bender & Co. and has been listed on their web site as an Expert Authority in the field of Insurance Law. His litigation practice is largely devoted to the defense of general insurance and coverage matters, New York Labor Law, bad faith and fraud and environmental and toxic tort.

Copyright Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, Inc. Fall 2002

Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved