A state supreme court has ruled that a general liability policy’s contractual liability coverage did not cover the bodily injury claim of a general partner of the contractor policyholder because he was not a “third party” as required in the policy for that coverage. However, the court noted that the general partner’s claim would have been covered if the second party owner had been named as an additional insured under the partnership’s policy.
The ConstructionPro Week summary of this case is available to ConstructionPro Network members and includes:
- The citation for the case
- The details of the case
- Author’s commentary
- A link to the complete PDF copy of the original opinion
Here is a portion of the author's commentary:
"The term 'third party' as used in this confusing and convoluted exclusion is certainly ambiguous, and the court’s assumption to the contrary is well beyond the reasonable expectations of individual policyholders. 'Third party' easily could be understood to include first parties when they are in the role of claimants, as distinct from being first-party indemnitors and policyholders. As a result, other courts are not likely to follow this decision."
