News and Events

Illinois Appellate Court, First District Finds Coverage For Additional Insured Under Blanket Additional Insured Endorsement

August 12, 2013Margaret ShipitaloRelated Practice Areas: Insurance

Illinois Appellate Court, First District Finds Coverage For Additional Insured Under Blanket Additional Insured Endorsement

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District recently issued a decision construing the written contract requirement of a blanket additional insured endorsement in a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. Reading together a contract, work order, and certificate of insurance, the appellate court in Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Robinette Demolition, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 112847, reversed the trial court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment and found that the putative additional insured was entitled to coverage.

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company issued a CGL policy to Cobra Concrete Cutting Service, Inc. (“Cobra”) for the period from March 20, 2008 to March 20, 2009. The policy contained an additional insured endorsement providing that “Who Is An Insured” is amended to include “all persons or organizations where required by written contract.” On April 8, 2003, Cobra and Robinette Demolition Company (“Robinette”) entered into an “ongoing subcontract agreement” (“the Agreement”) pursuant to which Cobra would perform concrete cutting services on future projects. The Agreement required Cobra to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Robinette and “any and all other Additional Insureds specified in Schedule ‘B’ hereof…” Schedule B required that the insurance obtained by Cobra include an endorsement naming Robinette and “any other parties as may be reasonably required by [Robinette]” as additional insureds.

On February 10, 2009, Robinette sent Cobra a work order for a project at 850 Lake Shore Drive (“the Lake Shore Drive project”), which expressly incorporated Schedule B to the Agreement. Robinette subsequently received a certificate of insurance revised on February 11, 2009 adding Robinette and Valenti Builders, Inc. (“Valenti”) as additional insureds.

Robinette and Valenti were named in a personal injury lawsuit filed by an employee of Cobra, who allegedly sustained injuries on February 25, 2009. At issue was whether Valenti was an additional insured under Cobra’s policy pursuant to the written contract requirement in the blanket additional insured endorsement. The court noted that while in general, parol evidence is only admissible if the contract is ambiguous, it is also admissible to identify what the contract is rather than to vary or change the terms of the contract. The court stated that the Agreement between Cobra and Robinette contemplated Cobra’s work on future projects. Robinette’s representative responsible for insurance testified in his affidavit that for each project, Robinette would send Cobra a list of additional insureds, and that in connection with the Lake Shore Drive project, he faxed Cobra a sample certificate and requested that Cobra add several additional insureds, including Valenti. He subsequently received a certificate of insurance and an addendum naming Valenti as an additional insured.

The court found that due to the ongoing nature of the Agreement, the parties intended for Cobra to obtain additional insured coverage for other entities designated by Robinette. Further, though the work order, certificate, and Agreement were not executed at the same time, the court found that they were part of the same “ongoing transaction” and construed them together. In addition, the court stated that while the certificate of insurance alone did not satisfy the written contract requirement, it “provide[d] an additional writing which supports a finding that the written agreement between Cobra and Robinette contemplated that, at a future time, Robinette would name other entities to be added as additional insureds.” The court rejected the trial court’s determination that Valenti was required to be identified by name in the Agreement, and held that Valenti was an additional insured under Cobra’s policy.

About Us

Cassiday Schade is a litigation law firm headquartered in Chicago, with a presence throughout the Midwest. We focus on providing our clients with exceptional and efficient representation and act as national or regional counsel for clients facing nationwide exposures.

With experience in virtually all areas of civil litigation, we have a diverse client base and our attorneys provide companies of various sizes with extensive trial experience and case preparation acumen. Throughout our history, we have represented individuals and companies in a variety of industries, including long-term care, insurance, financial services, manufacturing, construction, professional services and transportation. In addition to trial and appellate work, we provide both organizations and individuals with the tools to analyze and prevent risk before litigation arises.

We take pride in working with our clients and not just for them. Every case is different, and determining the best possible outcome is what our attorneys deliver. Sometimes this means aggressive preparation for trial, other times it may involve seeking an early resolution through alternative means, such as mediation or arbitration. Ultimately, our clients receive the benefit of having their matters handled with maximum efficiency and skill.

Attorneys

Practices

Cassiday Schade’s Admiralty & Maritime practice group represents clients in a wide range of maritime matters and understands the legal complexities that are an integral part of the marine industry.

At Cassiday Schade, we recognize the important distinction between trial and appellate work and the need for appellate specialists. Our attorneys have outstanding research, writing and oral advocacy skills and bring an original perspective and tailored strategy to each appeal. A significant portion of our strategy includes analyzing whether or not an appeal is the best course of action for our clients. Our practice group provides an appellate perspective when issues arise at trial, including the introduction of prejudicial evidence by an opponent, an opponent's efforts to limit the introduction of evidence favorable to the defense and jury instructions. We also become involved after litigation concludes, and offer guidance on post-trial motions and responses.

Cassiday Schade’s Civil Rights & Correctional Healthcare practice is dedicated to providing expert, cost-effective legal defense to correctional healthcare employers, as well as the doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers they employ. Our attorneys aren’t just excellent litigators, we are also industry experts and are intimately acquainted with trends, changes and legal developments that may impact our clients.

Cassiday Schade’s Commercial attorneys serve as advocates and business advisors to clients from a wide range of industries including banking, real estate financing and investment, health care, automobile sales and finance, financial services, insurance, manufacturing, and construction.

The representation of contractors, developers and design professionals has been a focus of Cassiday Schade since the inception of the firm. The depth of our experience covers the broad spectrum of all points where construction and the law intersect. Our list of clients includes the largest general contractors in Illinois as well as owners, architects, engineers and specialty subcontractors. We routinely represent these companies in their biggest and most problematic cases. While we have the ability to staff large accounts, we keep our client teams small so that our attorneys remain familiar with the client’s background and needs. This ensures efficiency and consistency in our representation of our clients.

Cassiday Schade’s Employment practice group represents organizations in a wide range of employment related disputes. As part of our litigation strategy, our attorneys provide an early assessment of each case to determine the best avenue toward resolution, considering both the nature and potential exposure of the claim and the needs of the client.

Cassiday Schade’s Environmental and Toxic Injury practice group serves clients who are, or may be, exposed to claims arising from the manufacture, sale or use of potentially toxic and hazardous substances, and to the threat of litigation arising from environmental claims attendant to land, air and water pollution. Our firm is often retained to handle not only the litigation of active lawsuits, but to monitor litigation for nationwide corporations, advise corporations on risk reduction and coordinate the nationwide defense strategy for corporations facing toxic tort, product liability and other commercial issues. Our success is determined by a skilled team of attorneys with industry acumen and access to a large network of experts and consultants. No matter the issue, our overarching goal is the same: to bring our clients the best possible result through proactive and individualized service.

Cassiday Schade’s Hospitality and Retail practice represents a wide-range of clients in complex litigation matters, including hotels and hotel chains, hotel management companies, hotel property owners, franchisees, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, and event production companies. In addition, our skilled team of attorneys is committed to providing our clients with guidance and risk-management strategies to avoid future litigation. This includes but is not limited to, legal counseling, alternative dispute resolution and pre suit negotiations.

Cassiday Schade’s Insurance practice group provides full-service litigation, transactional and alternative dispute resolution capabilities to insurance carriers and other commercial entities. Our expert team of attorneys is focused on providing clients with prompt, direct advice regarding the risks presented in any given situation, both preventively and when litigation arises. Our team also frequently utilizes litigation alternatives such as contractual resolutions, standstill agreements and mediation, all of which can be of great assistance in complex insurance matters.

We represent some of the nation’s top hospitals and other healthcare providers in the successful defense of malpractice litigation. The actions we defend are approached with the highest level of professional consideration and we have tried hundreds of cases to verdict in over 50 counties nationally. Our industry expertise and innovative use of technology to create demonstrative evidence during trial provides clients with the most successful defense possible. We also have access to a network of the most qualified consultants and experts who provide guidance and work closely with our team of attorneys on these lawsuits.

Cassiday Schade’s Nursing Home & Long-Term Care practice group represents nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospices, home health care agencies and rehabilitation centers. At the core of our practice is an understanding of the difficulty inherent in effectively addressing the quality of care provided to individuals whose health is compromised. Our attorneys are a dedicated group of litigators with extensive industry knowledge of OBRA Regulations, the Illinois Administrative Code and the Nursing Home Care Act. We are committed to partnering with our clients in the investigation, planning, direction and defense of a case to determine the most efficient and practical resolution.

Cassiday Schade’s Products Liability practice group has extensive knowledge of state and federal product liability laws and the applicable standards governing the design, manufacture and distribution of products. Our attorneys’ first step is product identification, specifically to examine our clients’ involvement in the design, manufacture, and/or distribution. This includes following paper trails and pursuing investigation to locate and preserve evidence. We also immediately analyze whether any legal defenses, such as statutes of limitations or repose, can be asserted. Our experience in the industry provides us with access to the most sophisticated experts. We act quickly to retain the best consultants, provide them with all applicable materials and obtain their input in order to present the best legal and technical defense.

Professional liability cases are often complex, both factually and procedurally. Cassiday Schade’s Professional Liability practice group services a wide range of clients including accountants, architects and engineers, attorneys, nursing homes, officers and directors, paramedics and psychologists. Our attorneys realize the importance of understanding burdens of proof, standards of care and the need to promptly identify the right consultants and experts. We stay abreast of case law and developments in the profession so that we can bring the highest level of knowledge and understanding to a given case. Our practice team involves our clients in all aspects of litigation, keeping them informed and seeking their input.

Cassiday Schade’s Transportation practice group represents motor carriers, owners, operators, trucking companies and insurance carriers in what are often catastrophic accidents involving trucks, trains, buses, vans, automobiles and other modes of transportation. Our rapid response team of attorneys, accident reconstructionists and transportation investigators is on-call 24 hours a day and can be immediately dispatched to preserve and document physical evidence, inspect vehicles and perform a download of the electronic control module. We also frequently defend cases where the first notice is the lawsuit. Our attorneys perform early assessments of both the liability and damage aspects of each case. This analysis often leads to an early resolution by way of alternative dispute methods including mediation.

Cassiday Schade's Veterinary Medicine practice group represents Doctors of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) Registered Veterinary Technicians (R.V.T.) and veterinary assistants and their practices in malpractice claims, state licensing and disciplinary board actions, and appeals.

Headlines

Blog

Illinois Analysis of General Personal Jurisdiction Following Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Mallory. [i] This decision reaffirmed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania Fire from 1917.[ii] In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Missouri statute did not violate the Due Process Clause. ... [ read more ]

view all