Everest National Insurance Co. v. Evanston Insurance Company

MEMORANDUM

Everest National Insurance Company and Evanston Insurance Company appeal the district court’s partial denial and partial grant of their cross-motions for summary judgment. We affirm.

Because there is a “minimal causal connection” between the sprinklers Triangle managed and the ice on which Schirling slipped, La Villa is covered as an additional insured under Triangle’s policy issued by Everest for liability arising from Schirling’s injuries. See Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Syufy Enters., 69 Cal.App.4th 321 , 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 557, 561 (1999); see also Fed. Ins. Co. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 124 Nev. 319 , 184 P.3d 390, 397 (2008) (holding that an endorsement covering liabilities “arising out of a named insured’s operations performed for the additional insured” generally provides coverage “so long as the injury or loss suffered is connected to the,named insured’s operations performed for the additional insured’s benefit”).

We reject Evanston’s argument that the phrase “the insured” in Everest’s “other insurance” clause refers only to “the named insured.” Read in context and in the policy as a whole, Everest’s “other insurance” clause limiting its liability is applicable…