Plaintiff roofing contractor sued defendant insurance broker for negligence, alleging the broker failed to add the roofing contractor as an additional insured under comprehensive general liability insurance policies issued to defendant subcontractor, to whom the roofing contractor subcontracted some work. The roofing contractor appealed a summary judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, entered in favor of the broker.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are California Incorporation Lawyers
Overview
The roofing contractor alleged that as a result of the broker’s failure to add the roofing contractor as an additional insured, it was damaged in connection with a claim made against it by a general contractor arising from the subcontractor’s work, which claim would have been covered by the insurance if the roofing contractor had been named as an additional insured. The broker argued that its failure to add the roofing contractor as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy did not cause the roofing contractor’s alleged damages because the policy would not have covered the general contractor’s claim against the roofing contractor, even if the roofing contractor had been an additional insured. The instant court held that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the insurance coverage that the broker failed to obtain for the roofing contractor could have covered the roofing contractor’s damages. There was evidence that some of the sums the general contractor sought to recover from the roofing contractor were due to property damage covered under the subcontractor’s policy. The broker did not otherwise establish the roofing contractor’s claim was legally barred.
Outcome
The judgment was reversed. The contractor was awarded its costs on appeal.