Additional-insured wording in Burlington Insurance v. NYC Transit Authority

What the public record says

Breaking Solutions, Inc. contracted to provide equipment and personnel for a New York City subway construction project. To satisfy the transit authority’s insurance requirement, it obtained a commercial general-liability policy whose endorsement listed the New York City Transit Authority, MTA New York City Transit, and New York City as additional insureds. After an employee was injured, the insurer disputed whether the additional-insured coverage applied.

The New York Court of Appeals focused on the endorsement’s language: bodily injury had to be “caused, in whole or in part,” by the named insured’s acts or omissions. The court rejected a broad “but for” reading and held that, under that wording, coverage required injury proximately caused by the named insured.

Disposition

On June 6, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and granted summary judgment to the insurer on the coverage issue. The official opinion is the record for this case file; the facts and holding above are limited to that record and its endorsement language.

Why the record is useful in a certificate review

The decision does not mean that an additional insured never has coverage when it is alleged to be negligent. It means the words of the endorsement define the status granted. A certificate may evidence a policy, but it does not replace the endorsement or enlarge it. When a contract asks for additional-insured status, retain the actual endorsement, identify the required operations and completed-operations wording, and compare it with the contract’s request.