The Texas Court of Appeals found that Exxon Mobil Corporation was an additional insured under the CGL policy for Exxon's service provider. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Exxon contracted with Wyatt Field Service Company to perform "services" as set forth in various work orders from Exxon's affiliates. The contract also required Wyatt to maintain $5 million of commercial general liability insurance. The contract provided that the policies must cover Exxon and its affiliates "as additional insureds in connection with the performance of Services." In 2008, Wyatt was assigned to work on a flexicoker unit at Exxon's refinery. Wyatt was to reinstall dummy nozzles and chains. It completed this service in October 2008. Three years later, one of the dummy nozzles pulled free, and the escaping steam and coke burned three individuals who were working on the unit. After the accident, it was discovered that the safety chain had been installed in the wrong location so that it did not properly secure the dummy nozzle. The injured workers sued Exxon and Wyatt. Exxon demanded a defense and indemnity from Liberty Surplus, Wyatt's primary carrier, and from Commerce & Industry Insurance Company, Wyatt's excess umbrella insurer. Neither insurer defended or contributed to the settlement Exxon reached with the injured workers. Exxon filed a separate suit against the insurers. The trail court granted summary judgment in Exxon's favor. On appeal, the court noted that Endorsement 3 of the Liberty policy read: WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include as an insured any person or organization with whom you have agreed to add as a additional insured by written contract but only with respect to liability arising out of your operations . . . . There was no dispute that Exxon was an additional insured in some circumstances. The court considered whether the endorsement incorporated any coverage restrictions in the underlying contract. The endorsement referred the reader to the written contract when identifying who was an insured, but not when limiting the circumstances under which such a person or organization was considered to be an insured. The court did not consider the underlying contract's coverage limitations unless the policy so directed. Therefore, Exxon was an additional insured with respect to liability arising out of Wyatt's operations. The insurers also argued that Exxon could not conclusively establish that the injured workers' claims fell within the scope of coverage until Wyatt was found to be liable. The court disagreed. Exxon's additional-insured coverage was neither dependent on a finding that Wyatt was negligent nor excluded if Exxon's negligence was found to be the sole proximate cause of the workers' injuries. Exxon was an additional insured "with respect to liability arising out of [Wyatt's] operations." This language did not require proximate cause or legal causation. To secure coverage, Exxon was not required to prove that Wyatt proximately caused the workers' damages. The jury's negligence findings in the underlying case did not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment in Exxon's favor.
Follow our page in Facebook "Insurance Online". from Insurance Law Hawaii
