The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on april 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. The policy was in effect at the time of Brown's injury. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. Suit was filed and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Selective first argued that there was no written contract between the parties under which Target was to be added as an additional insured. Selective submitted that the Program Agreement expired before the policy was in effect and before Brown's injury. The court rejected this agreement because the SQA, not the Purchase Agreement, required Harbor to name Target as an additional insured.
Follow our page in Facebook "Insurance Online". from Insurance Law Hawaii
