Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Carson Madrona Company, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE Case No. 23-cv-06259-VC

COMPANY,

Plaintiff, ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 63, 64, 67,

CARSON MADRONA COMPANY, LLC,

et al., Defendants.

Hartford’s and Ace’s motions for summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part, and Carson Madrona’s and the Liberty parties’ are denied. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. 1. The endorsement, not the coverage form, governs coverage under the Hartford policy. The coverage form says that it does not apply to any entity that is made an insured by an endorsement. The blanket endorsement to the Hartford policy says that it applies “where required by written contract or agreement.” So because the lease required Ashley to get commercial general liability insurance and add Carson Madrona as an additional insured, Carson Madrona is an insured under the endorsement (and not the coverage form). Even if the coverage form didn’t expressly say that endorsements applied over it, under California law, the language of an…