This concerns a narrow issue of contractors’ insurance coverage. For those interested in such things, though, it makes a couple of useful points so we will cover those briefly.
Contractor had to replace a roof that one of its subs had built badly. It then made a claim, as an Additional Insured on the sub’s policy, for the cost of the replacement. Insurer denied the claim; Contractor sued; the trial court granted it summary judgment; Insurer appealed.
The Court of Appeals reverses and remands with instructions to enter judgment for Insurer. The useful points are: (1) an Additional Insured is essentially in the position of the Named Insured, and (2) a contractor isn’t covered for the cost of its mistakes. Put that way the result makes sense but you can’t get there without weaving through several policy definitions. The court does so rather briskly and and then summarizes them a couple times for clarity.