BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack
BarbriPdBannerMessage

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Insurance

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Tuesday, October 4, 2022

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

$297.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

CLE
ALL

This CLE course will analyze how courts assess when the insurer's duty to defend is triggered concerning a claim by an additional insured. The panel will outline the various circumstances where extrinsic evidence is considered.

Faculty

Christine A. Gudaitis
Partner
Ver Ploeg & Marino, PA

Ms. Gudaitis concentrates her trial and appellate practice in the areas of insurance coverage and bad faith litigation, representing individual and corporate policyholders. She specializes in construction defect matters where AI and indemnity issues frequently arise.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Kevin P. Sullivan
Partner
Goldberg Segalla

Mr. Sullivan focuses his practice on complex insurance coverage issues. He has substantial experience advising insurers on insurance coverage and claims-handling issues in state and federal courts, as well as in alternative dispute resolution forums. Mr. Sullivan's practice also includes litigating first-party and third-party disputes arising from multiple lines of insurance, including property, general liability, professional liability, and excess liability policies.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The standards used by courts to determine whether the insurer has a duty to defend the named insured vary by jurisdiction, but conventional wisdom holds that the same standards apply to a determination regarding the duty to defend additional insureds. Or do they? Assessing the duty to defend an additional insured raises unique issues not present in the named insured. The status of a party seeking coverage under an additional insured blanket endorsement or some other contractual arrangement with the named insured may not be readily apparent from the policy.

Further, additional insured endorsements are a source of litigation as the parties negotiate the wording of the endorsement. The endorsement may limit coverage to circumstances involving liability related to the named insured's conduct or conduct during a specific period.

Even courts that adhere to the four corners of the complaint and policy rule may be open to considering extrinsic evidence in assessing whether to enforce the insurer's duty to defend an additional insured. There is, however, very little uniformity among courts concerning these issues.

Listen as our authoritative panel of insurance practitioners examines the approach employed by courts in determining whether the insurer's duty to defend is triggered concerning a claim by an additional insured. The panel will analyze the various circumstances in which courts should and will resort to extrinsic evidence.

Outline

  1. Overview of standards used by courts to determine an insurer's duty to defend
    1. Four corners/eight corners rules
    2. Extrinsic evidence
  2. Determining whether the policy grants the party additional insured status
  3. Determining whether there are limitations to this AI status
  4. Determining whether there are limitations to the scope of coverage

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Standards used by courts to determine an insurer's duty to defend an additional insured
  • Circumstances in which courts consider extrinsic evidence in determining whether the insurer's duty to defend an additional insured is triggered
  • Circumstances in which additional insured endorsements may limit or negate coverage of the additional insured