Additional Insured Endorsements: Determining When Duty to Defend Arises, When Extrinsic Evidence Admissible

This CLE course will analyze how courts assess when the insurer's duty to defend is triggered concerning a claim by an additional insured. The panel will outline the various circumstances where extrinsic evidence is considered.

The standards used by courts to determine whether the insurer has a duty to defend the named insured vary by jurisdiction, but conventional wisdom holds that the same standards apply to a determination regarding the duty to defend additional insureds. Or do they? Assessing the duty to defend an additional insured raises unique issues not present in the named insured. The status of a party seeking coverage under an additional insured blanket endorsement or some other contractual arrangement with the named insured may not be readily apparent from the policy.

Further, additional insured endorsements are a source of litigation as the parties negotiate the wording of the endorsement. The endorsement may limit coverage to circumstances involving liability related to the named insured's conduct or conduct during a specific period.

Even courts that adhere to the four corners of the complaint and policy rule may be open to considering extrinsic evidence in assessing whether to enforce the insurer's duty to defend an additional insured. There is, however, very little uniformity among courts concerning these issues.

Listen as our authoritative panel of insurance practitioners examines the approach employed by courts in determining whether the insurer's duty to defend is triggered concerning a claim by an additional insured. The panel will analyze the various circumstances in which courts should and will resort to extrinsic evidence.