Certificate Says Additional Insured - The Endorsement Disagrees
Wexford Property Group manages a shopping center. Its contract with Kestrel Electric required Kestrel to name Wexford as an additional insured for both ongoing and completed operations, on a primary and non-contributory basis. Kestrel's broker sent Wexford's risk manager an ACORD 25 certificate stating 'Wexford Property Group - Additional Insured.' The actual policy, written on ISO forms, contains CG 20 10 (Additional Insured - Owners, Lessees or Contractors - Scheduled Person or Organization) and no other additional insured endorsement. Kestrel's limits are $1,000,000 each occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate, of which $1,600,000 is already used. Two claims arise. In 2023 a Wexford maintenance employee was struck by a light fixture Kestrel's electrician dropped while installing it; he sues Wexford only, alleging Wexford failed to cordon off the area. In 2024 a shopper trips on a conduit Kestrel installed in 2022 and left protruding; she sues Wexford only. Wexford tenders both claims to Kestrel's carrier.
1. How should Kestrel's carrier respond to the 2024 shopper's claim?
Read the worked answer
Deny additional insured status; the claim is outside the endorsement. CG 20 10 attaches coverage only for liability arising out of the named insured's ongoing operations performed for the additional insured at the scheduled location. The conduit was installed in 2022, Kestrel's work was finished and accepted, and the injury occurred years later. That is a completed-operations exposure, and the form on the policy does not reach it. The completed-operations endorsement (CG 20 37, or a combined CG 20 33, depending on edition) was never purchased.
The certificate is not coverage. A certificate of insurance is an informational document. It is not part of the policy, does not amend the policy, and does not create coverage, however prominently it lists Wexford. The remedy for that gap is a claim against Kestrel's broker for negligent procurement, not a coverage claim against the carrier.
Practical result. Wexford's own general liability policy defends and, subject to its deductible or self-insured retention, indemnifies. Wexford then pursues Kestrel for contractual indemnity and for breach of the insurance procurement clause.
Watch point: a few jurisdictions allow estoppel where the carrier itself issued the certificate, but a broker-issued certificate alone rarely supports it.
2. How should the carrier respond to the 2023 dropped-fixture claim, where Wexford's own alleged negligence contributed?
Read the worked answer
The endorsement is engaged. Unlike the shopper's claim, this injury occurred while Kestrel was performing operations for Wexford at the scheduled location. The endorsement ties coverage to liability arising out of Kestrel's ongoing operations performed for Wexford. A dropped fixture during installation is squarely within that.
Wexford's own negligence is not automatically fatal. The causal test in these endorsements is broad - a substantial nexus between the named insured's operations and the injury. A claim that Wexford failed to cordon the area does not break that nexus, because the fixture fell as part of Kestrel's work. Whether the additional insured is covered for its sole negligence depends on the edition and wording of the form, so read the exact endorsement and any amendments before taking a final position.
Defense. The carrier owes a defense to Wexford under the endorsement, subject to a reservation of rights, and defense costs are typically shared with Wexford's own insurer. The primary and non-contributory wording applies only because the written contract requires it - and here it does.
Conclusion: defend the 2023 claim as additional insured, deny the 2024 claim, and document the edition of the form relied on for each decision.
3. Assuming the 2023 claim is covered, what limits are available to Wexford as an additional insured?
Read the worked answer
No separate limits. Additional insured status gives Wexford the protection of Kestrel's policy. It does not create a second set of limits. Wexford shares the $1,000,000 each-occurrence limit and the $2,000,000 general aggregate with Kestrel.
Aggregate arithmetic. $1,600,000 of the general aggregate has already been used, leaving $400,000. The 2023 bodily injury claim arises from ongoing operations, not from the products-completed operations hazard, so it draws on the general aggregate. Wexford's available capacity is therefore $400,000, not $1,000,000.
Consequence. If the dropped-fixture claim settles for more than $400,000, the endorsement coverage is exhausted and Wexford's own policy sits above it. This is the practical reason a sophisticated owner demands either its own separate limits or a contractual indemnity that does not depend solely on the subcontractor's remaining aggregate.
Watch point: defense costs under the standard form are payable in addition to the limits, so a long defended claim can consume the entire aggregate in indemnity while the defense spend runs separately.