The Compressor Through the Roof Opening: Additional Insured or Independent Negligence?
Northline Builders, general contractor on a six-story office project, subcontracted HVAC work to Vega Mechanical. The subcontract requires Vega to indemnify Northline for claims 'to the extent caused by Vega's negligent acts' and to name Northline as an additional insured on its CGL policy, which carries a $1M occurrence limit and an additional-insured endorsement limited to liability arising out of Vega's ongoing operations. During installation, a Vega employee dropped a 400-lb compressor through an uncovered roof opening, striking Northline carpenter Dan Ruiz. Ruiz suffered a fractured pelvis with $96,000 in medical bills and $40,000 in lost wages, and has sued both firms. Northline's own CGL carrier tendered defense to Vega's carrier and demanded full indemnity. Northline's liability expert assigns Northline 40% fault for failing to cover the opening; Vega's expert says 20%.
1. Does Vega's additional-insured endorsement respond to Northline's tender for a full defense?
Read the worked answer
Partly, and only for the derivative share. The compressor fell during Vega's ongoing HVAC installation, so Northline's alleged liability 'arises out of' Vega's operations - the trigger the endorsement is built on. Two qualifiers matter. First, read the endorsement edition before answering: many current forms carve out bodily injury to an employee of the additional insured, which would exclude Ruiz's claim outright and leave Northline arguing contract indemnity alone. Second, additional-insured status covers Northline's vicarious exposure, not its independent negligence. Failing to cover a roof opening is Northline's own conduct; the endorsement will not normally fund the share Northline's expert concedes. So the tender should be accepted under a reservation of rights for the 20-40% derivative band, not 100%, and answered in writing within the statutory period so Vega's carrier cannot later claim waiver or estoppel.
2. How should the indemnity clause and the competing fault estimates drive valuation of the tender?
Read the worked answer
The clause is narrow - indemnity only 'to the extent caused by' Vega - so it restates common-law contribution rather than shifting Northline's own negligence. Broad-form clauses that indemnify a party for its own sole negligence are void under anti-indemnity statutes in many states; this one likely survives that challenge, which means the dispute is factual, not contractual. Value the gap between the experts. With $136,000 in specials and a likely general-damages range, assume a total case value near $250,000: at Northline's 40% theory its exposure is about $100,000; at Vega's 20% theory it is about $50,000. The realistic settlement band for the tender is therefore $50,000-$100,000 plus allocated defense costs. Do not treat 'full indemnity' as the negotiating anchor; instead demand the subcontract, both experts' reports, and a joint cost-share agreement pending resolution.
3. What conflict-of-interest and strategy issues arise if Vega's carrier agrees to defend Northline?
Read the worked answer
A defending carrier that also insures Vega has an incentive to prove Vega's fault is small and Northline's is large, because that shrinks its own indemnity share. That divergence can create a disqualifying conflict in jurisdictions requiring independent counsel, and at minimum requires informed, written disclosure to Northline. Practical strategy: (1) accept the defense under a reservation of rights limited to the covered operations; (2) propose a joint defense agreement with a mutual cost-sharing formula (for example 60/40 in Vega's favor) so the two carriers do not fund dueling experts; (3) preserve the workers' compensation carrier's lien on Ruiz's recovery and confirm whether it will waive or assert it, since an asserted lien reduces net settlement value; (4) set Northline's file reserve only for the uncovered share after allocation, and diary the carrier's written position at 30, 60, and 90 days.