The owner of a large mixed-use project asserted claims against the project’s general contractor. The general contractor then made a request for “additional insured” benefits to its subcontractor’s liability insurer. The insurer denied both defense and indemnity benefits, asserting that the general contractor was not an additional insured and that the insurer’s coverage obligations were not triggered until the subcontractor satisfied a $500,000 self-insured retention.
Harper│Hayes then filed a coverage suit in federal court against the insurer. The Judge ruled on summary judgment that the insurer’s denial of defense benefits was in bad faith, estopping the insurer from denying coverage. Shortly after that ruling, the insurer paid mid-seven figures in settlements to resolve both the coverage lawsuit and part of the underlying action.