Maryland Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Insurance

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 572·65 Cal. App. 4th 21·76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 113·98 Daily Journal DAR 7115·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4996
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 1998D026693California3,802 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

A general contractor is added to a subcontractor’s commercial general liability insurance policy as an additional named insured. The additional insured endorsement states the insurance “applies only to the extent” the contractor is “held liable” for the subcontractor’s acts or omissions. Under this endorsement, does the insurer have a duty to defend the general contractor for a potentially covered claim? Based on the policy language and the principles governing insurance policy interpretation, we conclude the policy imposes a duty to defend and reject the argument the endorsement eliminates this defense obligation.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Nationwide Insurance Company (Nationwide). The trial court found National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, American International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, and Maryland Casualty Company were not entitled to contribution from Nationwide for defense costs expended in an underlying construction defect action. The court agreed with Nationwide’s contention that its policy language was unambiguous and did not impose a duty to defend. Appellants dispute Nationwide’s interpretation of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.