The court denied the insurer's and the contractor's cross motions for summary judgment. Core Construction Servs. Southeast v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11487 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2016). Core Construction was the general contractor for the Artisan Club Condominium Community project. Core Construction hired a subcontractor to install windows at Artisan Club. The subcontractor was identified as "Dunn Lumber & Overhead Door Co.," but Core Construction contends that the subcontractor was The Dunn Corporation, which was doing business as Dunn Lumber & Overhead Door Co. The subcontract provided that Core Construction was to be named as "Additional Insured on your General Liability policy." Dunn Corporation was insured under a CGL policy issued by Crum & Forster. The policy had a self-insured retention which provided that Crum & Forster's "Total limit of liability . . . shall apply in excess of the retained limit as stated in the endorsement, and the Named Insured agrees to assume this retained limit." The SIR amount was $250,000 per claim. In October 2009, the Artisan Club Condominium Association sued Core for damages allegedly arising from the construction and sale of units at Artisan Club. Core Construction tendered to Crum & Forster, but coverage was denied. Core sued Crum & Forster. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Crum & Forster first argued that Core Construction was not an additional insured because the entity it subcontracted with, Dunn Lumber & Overhead Door Co., was not an insured under the policy because it was not included in the endorsement's list of additional named insureds. Core Construction argued that the other party to the subcontract was actually the Dunn Corporation, which was simply doing business under the fictitious name of Dunn Lumber & Overhead Door Co. The subcontract had been signed by an officer of the Dunn Corporation and a number of documents attached to the subcontract (such as a Form W-9) were signed by officers of the Dunn Corporation. The court found that the evidence produced by Core Construction as to the identity of the other party to the subcontract was enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court could not conclude, however, whether the $250,000 SIR had been satisfied. The SIR endorsement provided that Crum & Forster's obligation to defend or indemnify only arose when "the amount of the Self-Insured Retention has been exhausted by the insured's payment of damages or 'Claims Expense' that would be covered by this policy but for the application of the Self-Insured Retention." Without more information, the court could not determine whether the money spent by the other insurers was paid toward items that would have been covered by the CGL policy but for the application of the SIR. It was possible that the money was spent on litigation expenses related to work performed by other subcontractors, or by Core Construction directly, which did not appear to be covered by the CGL policy.
Follow our page in Facebook "Insurance Online". from Insurance Law Hawaii
