1 Will Deepwater Horizon Change a Long Standing Rule of Law? In re Deepwater Horizon, 710 F.3d 338 (5 th Cir. 2013, withdrawn on r hrg). r In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491 (5 th Cir. 2013).
2 ACCIDENT Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon,, a semi-submersible, submersible, mobile offshore drilling unit. The Deepwater Horizon was engaged in exploratory drilling under a drilling contract between BP America Production Company and Transocean s s predecessor. An onboard explosion resulted in Deepwater Horizon sinking after burning for two days. A spill occurred underwater.
3 Insurance Provisions in the Drilling Contract 20.1 Insurance: Without limiting the indemnity obligations or liabilities of [Transocean] or its insurer, at all times during the term of this contract, [Transocean] shall maintain insurance covering the operations to be performed under this contract as set forth in Exhibit C. Exhibit C, Paragraph 1(c): The insurance required to be carried by [Transocean]... is as follows: (c) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, including contractual liability insuring the indemnity agreement as set forth in the Contract. Exhibit C, Paragraph 3: [BP]... shall be named as additional insureds in each of [Transocean s] s] policies, except Workers Compensation for liabilities assumed by [Transocean] under the terms of this Contract.
4 Indemnity Provisions of the Drilling Contract Art. 24.1: [Transocean] shall assume full responsibility for and... indemnify... BP... for pollution or contamination... originating on or above the surface of the land or water... Art. 24.2: [BP] shall assume full responsibility for and... indemnify... [Transocean]... for pollution or contamination... arising out of or connected with operations under this Contract hereunder and not assumed by [Transocean] in Article 24.1 above.
5 Transocean s s Insurance Primary: $50 million of general liability coverage. Excess policies (4 layers): $700 million of additional general liability coverage. These policies contain materially identical provisions.
6 Is BP an Additional Insured? Definition of Insured includes: (c) any person or entity to whom the Insured is obligated by any oral or written Insured Contract... to provide insurance such as is afforded by this Policy..... Definition of Insured Contract....shall mean any written or oral contract or agreement entered into by the Insured... And pertaining to business under which the Insured assumes the tort liability of another party..... BP is an additional insured under the primary and excess policies.
7 The Insurance Policies The primary and excess policies do not incorporate any of the limitations on additional insured coverage set forth in the drilling contract.
8 Will the Drilling Contract s Limitations Impact Interpretation of the Insurance Policies?
9 Is There Coverage for BP? BP only sought coverage on the basis of being an additional insured; it did not seek indemnity. Facts: Accident occurred when Deepwater Horizon was engaged in drilling for BP. Spill occurred underwater. Drilling Contract BP would not receive indemnity from Transocean under the indemnity provisions of Article 24. BP is to be an additional insured for liabilities assumed by Transocean under the contract. There should not be coverage based on the scope of coverage that should have been obtained under the terms of the drilling contract.
10 District Court The District Court examined the scope of coverage in light of the limitations imposed by the Drilling Contract. Under Article 24 of the Drilling Contract, Transocean did not have to indemnify BP as the spill occurred beneath the surface of the water. BP was not entitled to coverage as an additional insured.
11 Texas Law: Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Ins. To determine whether a commercial umbrella policy that was purchased to secure the insured s s indemnity obligation in a service contract with a third party also provides direct liability coverage for the third party, the court must look at the policy s s terms rather than the underlying contract. Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Ins., 256 S.W.3d 660, 664 (Tex. 2008). Courts must follow this rule so long as the indemnity and additional insured provisions of the underlying contract are separate and distinct. Id.
12 Texas Law If a policy is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the policy provision must be interpreted in favor of the insured as long as the interpretation is reasonable. Nat l l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Hudson Energy Co., 811 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tex. 1991). This must be done even if the insurer s s interpretation is more reasonable. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Cont l l Cas. Co., 185 S.W.3d 440, 444 (Tex. 2005). [A]n intent to exclude coverage must be expressed in clear and unambiguous language. Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Ins., 256 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2008).
13 Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Ins. A Triple S employee drowned while servicing the ATOFINA refinery. Under the services contract, AUTOFINA was to be named as an additional insured under Triple S ss s policies. However, the obligation would not extend to any obligations for which AUTOFINA agreed to indemnify Triple S. AUTOFINA had agreed to indemnify Triple S for AUTOFINA s sole negligence. AUTOFINA sought coverage as Triple S ss s additional insured and did not seek indemnity from Triple S.
14 Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Ins. AUTOFINA was an additional insured under the policy. The Texas Supreme Court looked only at the insurance policy, which covered AUTOFINA with respect to operations performed by Triple S. The policy did not contain any limitations based on the services contract (no coverage when AUTOFINA was solely negligent). The services contract s s limitations were not considered. The services contract s s indemnity and additional insured obligations were separate and distinct.
15 Aubris Resources LP v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 483 (5 th Cir. 2009) Fifth Circuit applied ATOFINA. United hired J&R to service its oil fields. Under the services contract, J&R was to name United as an additional insured, and United had to indemnify J&R for actions stemming from United s s own negligence. The services contract and the insurance policy s language were similar to the contracts from ATOFINA. United sought coverage as an additional insured under J&R s s CGL policy but did not seek indemnity under the services contract.
16 Aubris Resources LP v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. [I]t is not material to the [ATOFINA[ ATOFINA] ] rule whether the additional insured provision is finally determined in the policy or with the aid of the parties service contract. The separate indemnity provision is not applied to limit the scope of coverage. Indeed, on this point the Texas Supreme Court could not have been clearer: We have noted that where an additional insured provision is separate from and additional to an indemnity provision, the scope of the insurance requirement is not limited by the indemnity clause. Id. at 489 (quoting( ATOFINA, 256 S.W.3d at 664).
17 In re Deepwater Horizon, 710 F.3d 338 (5 th Cir. 2013, withdrawn on r hrg). r First Opinion
18 Only Look at the Policy? Or Examine the Drilling Contract too? Under Texas law, the Court was bound to look only at the policies to determine if BP was covered as an additional insured under the policies. Whether the Drilling Contract should be interpreted to say that BP is an additional insured only for liabilities assumed by Transocean under the contract was immaterial. In re Deepwater Horizon, 710 F.3d 338, (5 th Cir. 2013, withdrawn on r hrg). r
19 Only Look at the Policy!! Only the umbrella policies could establish the limits placed upon coverage for an additional insured. The policies language was very similar to the policies in ATOFINA and Aubris. The policy did not place any limitations on the additional insured coverage. Id.
20 Was the additional insured requirement separate and distinct from the indemnity clause? The additional insured requirement only needs to be a discrete requirement for it to be separate from and additional to an indemnity provision. Art. 20.1: Insurance requirements set forth in Exh. C. Exhibit C, Paragraph 1(c): The insurance required to be carried by [Transocean]... is as follows: (c) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, including contractual liability insuring the indemnity agreement as set forth in the Contract. Exhibit C, Paragraph 3: [BP]... shall be named as additional insureds in each of [Transocean s] s] policies, except Workers Compensation for liabilities assumed by [Transocean] under the terms of this Contract. Art and 24.2: Indemnity Provisions
21 Separate and Distinct Provisions The Drilling Contract: One paragraph of Exhibit C required Transocean to name BP as an additional insured. A separate paragraph required Transocean to obtain a CGL policy that included contractual liability insuring the indemnity agreement. [T]he provision in the Drilling Contract extending direct insured status to BP is separate and independent from BP s s agreement to forego contractual indemnity in various other circumstances. Id. at 349.
22 First Deepwater Horizon Opinion The additional insured provision in the contract is separate from and additional to the indemnity provision. The umbrella policies do not impose any relevant limitations on the extent to which BP is an additional insured. BP is entitled to coverage as an additional insured under each of the policies as a matter of law. (Unanimous decision) Id. at 350.
23 Why Certify Questions to the Texas Supreme Court? In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491 (5 th Cir. 2013) Second Opinion
24 Transocean and the Insurers Arguments: Key Distinctions The Drilling Contract requires that BP be named as an additional insured only for liabilities Transocean assumed in the contract. In contrast, the services contract in ATOFINA imposed a broad requirement for ATOFINA to be listed as an additional insured. The language in the Drilling Contract links the additional insured provision inextricably with the indemnity provision. These obligations are not separate and independent. The umbrella policy requires an insured contract to exist between Transocean and BP. No such contract was required by the policy in AUTOFINA.
25 Fifth Circuit s s View The foregoing distinctions between this case and ATOFINA result in the outcome not being entirely clear.
26 First Certified Question Whether Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Ins., 256 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2008) compels a finding that BP is covered for the damages at issue, because the language of the umbrella policies alone determines the extent of BP s s coverage as an additional insured if, and so long as, the additional insured and indemnity provisions of the Drilling Contract are separate and independent? In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491, 500 (5 th Cir. 2013).
27 How to Interpret the Drilling Contract? If the Court must consider whether the Drilling Contract imposes limitations on the additional insured coverage available to BP, then how should the additional insured provision of the contract be interpreted? Apply the same rules of construction as when a policy is examined? Construe against the Insurers?
28 Current Texas Law: Interpreting a Policy The court must interpret an insurance coverage provision in favor of the insured if there is more than one interpretation possible and that interpretation is reasonable. Do this even if the insurer s s interpretation is more reasonable than the insured s. s. An intent to exclude coverage must be clear and unambiguous. Id. at 499.
29 Why Favor the Insured? Why does Texas law favor the insured when interpreting the coverage provision of a policy? The insured and insurer s s unequal bargaining power. Doctrine of contra proferentem: : construe ambiguities against the drafter. Id. BUT: if the Court interprets the underlying contract, the insurer did not draft it.
30 Sophisticated Insured Exception? A Sophisticated Insured Exception could be created: it could apply when the policy is in some way negotiable ; ; and the insured is as capable as the insurer of interpreting the contract. Id. An exception may be appropriate where all the parties are highly capable contractors.
31 Would the Texas Supreme Court Recognize a Sophisticated Insured Exception? This case presents good arguments: All parties are highly capable contractors. The insurers were not involved in drafting the Drilling Contract, so it may be inappropriate to construe it against them. But the insurers drafted the umbrella policies and failed to limit coverage to the liabilities assumed by the insured in the insured contracts.
32 Second Certified Question Whether the doctrine of contra proferentem applies to the interpretation of the insurance coverage provision of the Drilling Contract under the ATOFINA case, 256 S.W.3d at 668, given the facts of this case? Id. at 500.
33 What Will the Texas Supreme Court Do?
34 Texas Insurance Code No additional insured provisions in construction contracts will be enforceable. ONLY applies to construction contracts. Numerous other industries use additional insured provisions. Only applies to construction contracts where the prime contract is entered into on or after January 1, We will be dealing with the effects of the Texas Supreme Court s s decision for the next few years.
35 Easiest Solution Insureds, agents, and insurers need to ensure that the policies only provide coverage for what the insured contracted for in the underlying agreement. Add language to the policies that narrows the additional insured coverage to the liabilities assumed by the named insured in the underlying agreement.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0670 444444444444 IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT
Adding the Insurance Run: Coverage Lessons from Deepwater Horizon Edward M. Grauman firstname.lastname@example.org 512-391-8025 Introduction BP leased rig from TO under drilling contract. Undersea oil spill led to
IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON: TEXAS TO REVISIT ATOFINA TO DECIDE SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL-INSURED LIABILITY COVERAGE I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON: PRESENTING A DEEPER ISSUE THAN BP S DEEP POCKETS...
Wednesday, March 18, 2015 Houston, TX 9:30 10:45 a.m. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DEEPWATER HORIZON SPILL Moderated by Speakers David Goodwin Partner Covington & Burling LLP John M. Elsley Of Counsel Royston,
ABA ICLC 2014 Conference Indemnity, AI, and the BP Oil Spill Tracy Alan Saxe Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Hamden, CT Celia B. Keniry Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Hamden, CT A common misconception regarding
Case: 13-51027 Document: 00513074445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant United States
Thursday, March 6, 2014 Houston, TX 2:45 4:00 p.m. LESSONS LEARNED? WHAT S NEXT? Presented by David B. Goodwin Partner Covington & Burling LLP The Deepwater Horizon insurance litigation persists and continues
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0670 444444444444 IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT
Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Houston, TX 1:30 2:45 p.m. DEEPWATER HORIZON INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE LESSONS LEARNED Presented by Julia M. (Adams) Palmer Member Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C. The Ranger v. Transocean
ACC Houston Chapter Meeting Indemnities and Insurance: Managing Risks Via Contracts in the Post-Macondo World April 9, 2013 Panelists Lisa Brown Managing Counsel, Oxy Permian Former outside counsel. Received
FALL 2013 NEWSLETTER INSURANCE LAW UPDATE By Jennifer Kelley THE FIFTH CIRCUIT In re Deepwater Horizon v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., 728 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. La. 2013). In Deepwater Horizon,
Marine Insurance Day October 5, 2012 Additional Insureds & Marine Insurance Joe Grasso and Michael Thompson 1 Agenda General Principles Case Studies Takeaways and Q&A 2 Named Insureds v. Additional Insureds
Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant
ATTACHMENT A.6 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ROUTINE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PROJECTS Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types and in the amounts listed below. A. COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND UMBRELLA
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
Case: 12-13210 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13210 D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 08-0073 444444444444 PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. REGAN KELLEY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 94-41244. Jerry B. HODGEN; Bobby Sue Hodgen, Plaintiffs, v. FOREST OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, FOREST OIL CORPORATION; Ronald J. Doucet, Defendants-Third
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
Contractual Risk Allocation in a Post- Macondo Environment Michael A. Golemi William W. Pugh Willis 2012 North America Energy Conference May 16, 2012 A Professional Law Corporation New Orleans Lafayette
Case: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 91 3941. INSTITUTE OF LONDON UNDERWRITERS, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FIRST HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Appellant. FIRST HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book
COVERAGE FOR DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR FAULTY WORKMANSHIP: EXCLUSIONS J(5) AND J(6) R. Douglas Rees Co-author Tara L. Sohlman Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202
Recent Developments in Insurance Coverage Disputes Exclusions Gone Awry: Misinterpretations of the Contractual Liability and Faulty Workmanship Exclusions Pose a Threat to the Construction Industry Jeffrey
Case: 09-30299 Document: 0051998279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D January 7, 2010 Summary
K YROUS R EALTY G ROUP, I NC. 263 West 38 th Street Suite 15E New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212.302.1500 Fax: 212.302.3855 500 Greenwich Street Condominium-Alteration Policy The following documents must be
Introduction To meet the needs of many of our Producers or Agents who have developed a clientele of well performing general contractors, Crum & Forster s Claims, Risk Engineering and Underwriting Departments
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
Pushed Beyond the Limits - Reactions to the U.S. Judiciary s Expansion of Additional Insured Coverage Suzanne C. Midlige, Esq. Rebecca A. Du Boff, Esq. 350 MOUNT KEMBLE AVENUE P.O. BOX 1917 MORRISTOWN,
MATTCON GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. INSURANCE SPECIFICATIONS EXHIBIT B INSURANCE Subcontractor shall obtain insurance of the types and in the amounts described below. The insurance shall be written by insurance
Case 3:12-cv-00341 Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION PAC-VAN, INC., Plaintiff, VS. CHS, INC. D/B/A CHS COOPERATIVES,
Powerine II Significant Insurance Coverage Implications for Administrative Cleanup Costs by Stewart S. Harrison Insurance Recovery Environmental Litigation In welcome news to umbrella policyholders, the
Risk Shifting Provisions in Maritime Contracts Issues Considered Issues Considered Risk Shifting Provisions in Marine Service Contracts Validity of Risk Shifting Provisions Other Considerations of Validity
OLYMPIC TOWER CONDOMINIUM INDEMNIFICATION/INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ENTRY PROTOCOL Revised 02-11-15 In order to gain access to the building, movers/contractors will need the following, on file with the
Case: 15-10510 Document: 00513424063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2016 Lyle W.
SANTA BARBARA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT Invitation for Bids for Architectural & Engineering Services Addendum Number 1 Issued August 5, 2013 The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) herewith
Construction Claims Avoidance: Or How to Make Molehills Out of Mountains Brian W. Erikson Quilling, Selander, Cummiskey & Lownds, P.C. 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800 Dallas, Texas 75210 Telephone: (214)
SCHALLER, J. The plaintiffs 2 appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Insurance Company of Greater New York, in this declaratory judgment action concerning a dispute about the defendant
The University of Texas School of Law Insurer s Duty to Settle: Understanding and Working with Stowers Issues David H. Timmins Elliot Strader Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 Dallas,
Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1874 September Term, 2000 INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORK CORPORATION ET AL. v. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO. Salmon, Eyler, Deborah S., Bloom, Theodore
Chapter 1 Navigating the Insurance Policy 1-1 INTRODUCTION Insurance policies are contracts governed by the general rules of contract construction. 1 As contracts go, however, insurance policies can be
NORTH CAROLINA RANDOLPH COUNTY CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this day of, 2015 by and between Randolph County, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
Wrought Iron Fence Request for Proposal AAMA is seeking two proposals for the professional installation of a wrought iron fence (hereafter referred to as the Work ) for the 6001 Gulf Freeway campus property
Case: 14-40512 Document: 00513239934 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 21, 2015 MARTIN
Indemnities and Endorsements Protecting the Owner and Developer Click to edit Master title style Update on Indemnification, Anti-Indemnity Statutes and Additional Insured Endorsements CoreNet Global Network
Appendix F Contractor s Insurance Requirements The Contractor shall procure at its sole cost and expense, and shall maintain in force at all times during the term of this Contract, policies of insurance
HOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNITY, SUBROGATION AND ADDITIONAL INSURED INSURANCE IN TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS By James W. Bryan Nexsen Pruet P.L.L.C. Greensboro, North Carolina 336-373-1600 email@example.com
ADDENDUM A1 Subcontractor Insurance Requirements Certificates and endorsements must be received and approved prior to the start of any work. No payments will be released until all insurance documents are
SHORT FORM STANDARD SUBCONTRACT This Agreement is made this day of, 20, between (Contractor) and (Subcontractor). The work described in Section I below shall be performed in accordance with the prime contract
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 09-3874 Brake Landscaping & Lawncare, Inc., * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District
Case: 13-20341 Document: 00512541689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February
CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court
Limiting liability for professional firms Introduction Disputes can arise between providers of professional services and their clients or other (third) parties for a number of reasons. Limiting or excluding
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
Contractual Indemnification Obligations and Insurance Coverage Joseph Fields Steven H. Weisman McCarter & English, LLP Jacqueline Beaudet Frenkel & Company Contractual Indemnification Business contracts
Exhibit B (Incorporated into Construction Purchase Order Terms and Conditions) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 1.1. Contractor shall maintain insurance underwritten by solvent insurance companies
2013 IL App (1st) 122479 - U SECOND DIVISION May 14, 2013 No. 1-12-2479 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579
-BGS Francis v. Anacomp, Inc. et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT FRANCIS, CASE NO.cv BEN (BGS) Plaintiff, ORDER: vs. ANACOMP, INC. ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT
COVERAGE UNDER A CGL POLICY I. Type of coverage provided by CGL coverage. A. CGL coverage is Commercial General Liability Coverage. B. Generally, a CGL policy provides coverage for the insured s liability
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Southwest Nut Company, Inc., et al Doc. 1107470457 Case: 13-11672 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Indemnification Clauses, Part 1* Discussion from a/e ProNet's Risk Management and Contract Guide J. Kent Holland, Jr., Esq. Issue: Indemnification provisions in contracts may require the design professional
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF YREKA AND [CONTRACTOR] THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of, 2014, by and between the City of Yreka, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred
P.O. Box 889 394 NE Hemlock Redmond, OR 97756 BROKER AND CARRIER AGREEMENT All loads tendered by Central Oregon Truck Company ("Broker") and accepted for transportation by third party carriers ("Carrier")
HOT TOPICS IN INSURANCE: UPDATE ON THE ACA, HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS, RATINGS CASE AND ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS I. FEDERAL AFFORDABLE CARE ACT A. Health Insurance Exchange 1. At this time, Pennsylvania
City of McHenry REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE City of McHenry Aquatics and Recreation Center Page 1 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL
Certificate of Liability Insurance, Form ACORD25: Following are the insurance requirements of the State of Minnesota acting through its Board of Trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities,
2015 IL App (1st 140790-U THIRD DIVISION March 25, 2015 No. 1-14-0790 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About CGL Contractual Liability Issues in the Construction Industry Presented by Craig F. Stanovich, CPCU, CIC, CRM, AU Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers LLC 1174 Main
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR LIABILITY INSURANCE The following are excerpts from Caltrans 2010Standard Specifications. Specifications are subject to change so refer to the project
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1362 GULF UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, versus Plaintiff - Appellee, KSI SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY : MAY TERM, 2004 & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, : No. 0621
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-3381 Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corporation, doing business as Philadelphia Insurance Companies lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.