Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse IRMI OnlineIRMI Online
Expand How To Use IRMI OnlineHow To Use IRMI Online
My Paid Publications
Expand What's NewWhat's New
Expand DashboardsDashboards
Collapse Commercial Liability InformationCommercial Liability Information
Collapse Free Commercial Liability CommentaryFree Commercial Liability Commentary
Expand Additional Insured IssuesAdditional Insured Issues
Expand EnvironmentalEnvironmental
Collapse Liability InsuranceLiability Insurance
PA Adopts First Manifestation Coverage Trigger (July 2015)
The ISO Classification System and the CGL Policy (March 2015)
The Duty To Defend—Groundless, False, or Fraudulent (December 2014)
The Montrose Endorsement—15 Years Later (September 2014)
The "Your Work Exclusion"—A Curious View (June 2014)
The CGL and the Professional Liability Exclusion (April 2014)
Subrogation and the CGL Policy (December 2013)
Broad Form Property Damage (September 2013)
Does CGL Coverage Apply after the Sale? (June 2013)
2013 Edition of the CGL (March 2013)
The Claims-Made CGL Policy (November 2012)
Contractual Liability Exclusion—The Ball Is in Your Court (June 2012)
Punitive Damages—Setting an Example (June 2012)
"Primary and Noncontributory" (March 2012)
Changing Definition of "Occurrence" in CGL Cases (January 2012)
Is an Occurrence the Bodily Injury or Property Damage? (December 2011)
Additional Insured Status—Automatic or Wet Blanket? (October 2011)
Legal Separation—The Severability Test in the CGL (June 2011)
Do CGL Policies Cover "Rip and Tear" Expenses? (March 2011)
The Increasingly Complex CGL Policy (January 2011)
Pay Me Back! Reimbursement of Defense Costs in the CGL (October 2010)
"Arising Out of": How Strong Is the Connection? (August 2010)
The Recall Expense Exclusion—When Your Ship Does Not Come In (July 2010)
Invisible Ink: The Duty To Defend When There Is No Duty To Defend (May 2010)
The Impaired Property Exclusion (April 2010)
Top 10 Problems with Follow-Form Coverage (March 2010)
Lowered Expectation: How Courts Treat Expected Injury Exclusions (February 2010)
A High-Level View of the CGL Policy (January 2010)
The Duty To Defend: The Four(ish) Corners Rule (November 2009)
OCP Liability versus Additional Insured Coverage (October 2009)
What Satisfies the Self-Insured Retention? (August 2009)
Contractual Confusion—Assuming the Liability of Others (July 2009)
The Persistence of Indemnity (May 2009)
Other Insurance and the CGL Policy (April 2009)
CGL Insurance and the Question of Intent (February 2009)
Trigger Theories and the CGL (December 2008)
Care, Custody, or Control Exclusion in the CGL (October 2008)
Coverage Trigger: Getting It Right for the Right Reason (October 2008)
The Future Is Now: When Eventual Indemnity Obligations become Present Defense Obligations (August 2008)
CGL Insurance 2007 Edition—A Summary of Changes (June 2008)
Variations on a Theme: When the Cause Theory Determines the Number of Occurrences (May 2008)
CGL Exclusion for Expected or Intended Injury (March 2008)
The Burden To Allocate: Mine, Yours, or Ours? (February 2008)
Liquor Liability Exclusion in the CGL (January 2008)
Insurance Law and Exclusion (m) (November 2007)
Allocating Losses under a 1973 CGL (September 2007)
When Workers Aren't Employees (September 2007)
In Defense of Insured Contracts (July 2007)
More Allocation Theories: Exhaustion (July 2007)
No Harm, No Coverage—Personal and Advertising Injury Liability Coverage in the CGL (Part 1) (January 2007)
No Harm, No Coverage—Personal and Advertising Injury Liability Coverage in the CGL (Part 2) (April 2007)
Cover Me: The Subcontractor Exception to the Your [Completed] Work Exclusion (April 2007)
The Scope of "Ongoing Operations" Additional Insured Endorsements: Broader than Expected (February 2007)
When Does Liability Coverage Exist for Mental Anguish without Bodily Injury? (November 2006)
The Hazards of Products and Completed Operations (October 2006)
Pre-Tender Defense Costs: Who Pays? (July 2006)
Are Products Advertisements That Give Rise to Advertising Injury Coverage? (April 2006)
Additional Insured Endorsements—A Potential Minefield (Part 1) (January 2006)
Additional Insured Endorsements—A Potential Minefield (Part 2) (February 2006)
Additional Insured Endorsements—A Potential Minefield (Part 3) (March 2006)
Allocation of Damages for Ongoing Losses over Multiple Policies (January 2006)
Auto versus Mobile Equipment in the 2004 CGL—An Update (October 2005)
The Scope of the Prior Publication Exclusion: Now You See It, Now You Don't (October 2005)
Faulty Work and the CGL (July 2005)
Insurers: Can You Get Your Defense Dollars Back? (July 2005)
CGL—Fire Legal (April 2005)
CGL—Covered Locations (December 2004)
A Summary of December 2004 ISO CGL Policy Changes (October 2004)
How the Limits Apply in the CGL (July 2004)
Additional Insured Changes in the CGL (May 2004)
The 2004 ISO CGL Policy (April 2004)
Some Common Coverage Misconceptions of the CGL Policy (January 2004)
Known Injury or Damage (October 2003)
When Is an Insured Not an Insured? (June 2003)
The CGL Pollution Exclusion (March 2003)
Auto versus Mobile Equipment in the CGL (December 2002)
Duty to Defend in the CGL Policy (August 2002)
Contractual Liability and the CGL Policy (May 2002)
Insurance Litigation Review: 2001 (April 2002)
The 2001 ISO CGL Revision (January 2002)
What Does "Separation of Insureds" Mean (Part 1) (June 2001)
What Does "Separation of Insureds" Mean (Part 2) (August 2002)
Insurance Coverage Disputes and Society's Problems (May 2001)
Coordinating Persons Insured in Primary and Excess Liability Policies (February 2001)
Gun Violence and the CGL Policy (February 2001)
Spoliation of Evidence: The Next Frontier for Insurance Coverage Battles (January 2001)
Who Wants To Be an Insured? (December 2000)
When a Breach of Contract Constitutes an Accident (July 2000)
When Negligent Conduct Does Not Constitute an Accident (March 2000)
The 1999 CGL Insuring Agreement: ISO's "Montrose Endorsement" (March 2000)
Additionally Insured or Held Harmful? (March 2000)
Expand Commercial Property InformationCommercial Property Information
Expand Commercial Auto InformationCommercial Auto Information
Expand D&O, PL, E&O, EPLI InformationD&O, PL, E&O, EPLI Information
Expand Workers Compensation InformationWorkers Compensation Information
Classifications and Cross-References
Expand Risk Mgt. and Multiline InformationRisk Mgt. and Multiline Information
Expand Risk Finance InformationRisk Finance Information
Expand Construction InformationConstruction Information
Expand Personal Lines InformationPersonal Lines Information
Expand Claims, Caselaw, LegalClaims, Caselaw, Legal
Expand Insurance IndustryInsurance Industry
Expand Glossary of Insurance & Risk Management TermsGlossary of Insurance & Risk Management Terms
Expand SearchSearch
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement
System Requirements

Additional Insured Endorsements—A Potential Minefield (Part 1)

January 2006

It's a standard, run-of-the mill, you've seen one you've seen them all recommendation—make sure you get listed on someone else's commercial general liability (CGL) policy as an additional insured. Maybe more importantly, you have just agreed to list someone on your CGL policy. What did you give? What did you get?

by Craig F. Stanovich
Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers, LLC

Considering that all additional insured endorsements are not created equal, the need for some analysis becomes apparent. But where do you start? How do you compare one additional insured endorsement to another? This analysis becomes more complicated when your client hands you an additional insured endorsement that contains an insurer's own unique wording.

Here are some areas to consider in a basic analysis of any additional insured endorsement. How much weight to give any particular area depends on a great number of variables—not the least of which is the actual wording (or lack of wording) in the contract that requires your client to list another organization as an additional insured.

Connection to Named Insured

The coverage afforded an additional insured is usually restricted in some manner. Aside from the issue of who may be liable for the injury or damage, usually some connection between the named insured and additional insured must first be established.


Let's say a cell phone manufacturer, Cell Maker, Inc. (the named insured), using the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO), Additional Insured—Vendors endorsement (CG 20 15 07 04), lists as an additional insured on their CGL policy a retailer (vendor) who sells Cell Maker's phones. A claim is made against the retailer/vendor for injuries suffered by a customer caused by a cell phone. The retailer sends the claim to Cell Maker's CGL insurer, seeking protection for the claim as an additional insured.

It quickly becomes apparent the cell phone that caused the injury was made by a competitor of Cell Maker and not by Cell Maker. As the retailer/vendor is an additional insured only for the cell phones manufactured by Cell Maker, the necessary connection has not been established between the retailer and Cell Maker. The retailer/vendor is not covered as an additional insured for this claim.

Leased Equipment

Here's another example. A restaurant leases a walk-in freezer from a leasing company. As required by the lease contract, the restaurant (named insured) lists as an additional insured on their CGL policy the leasing company (lessor), using the ISO Additional Insured—Lessor of Leased Equipment endorsement (CG 20 28 07 04). While visiting the leasing company's premises to inspect an oven she is considering leasing, the restaurant owner falls and severely injures her knee.

She brings suit against the leasing company, who in turn seeks coverage as an additional insured under the restaurant's CGL as an additional insured. Again, the connection is not sufficient—the injury was not caused in any way by the leased walk-in freezer. The lessor has no coverage as an additional insured under the restaurant's CGL policy for the restaurant owner's injuries.


The use of additional insureds, and the coverage disputes that result from additional insured coverage, are so common in the construction industry that any discussion about additional insureds must include a mention of contractors.

Office Project. Gerald's General Contracting, Inc., compels every subcontractor, including Paul's Painting, Inc., to add Gerald's as an additional insured to the subcontractor's CGL policy using the ISO Additional Insured—Owners, Lessees or Contractors endorsement (CG 20 10 07 04) listing the covered operations as the new office building project (wouldn't it be nice if insurance requirements were this clear?). Paul's complies and provides Gerald's General Contracting with the requested certificate, including the express notation that Gerald's General Contracting is an additional insured via CG 20 10 07 04 for the office project.

School Project. For a separate school project in which Paul's Painting is not in any way involved, Gerald's General Contracting, who is the general contractor for the school project, has borrowed Paul's scaffolding. Unfortunately, the scaffolding at the school collapses, and several people are injured, including a passerby. Gerald's General Contracting is quickly besieged with claims and lawsuits—all of which are sent to Paul's Painting's CGL insurer by Gerald's General Contracting, demanding defense and indemnity as an additional insured. Gerald's General Contracting is considerate enough to include along with the claim documents the certificate of insurance from Paul's issued for the office building project that conclusively demonstrates Gerald's is an additional insured on Paul's CGL policy.

No Connection. Paul's insurer denies any obligation to defend or indemnify Gerald's General Contracting. Gerald's is an additional insured on Paul's CGL only for ongoing operations performed by Paul's Painting at the new office building project. Lending the scaffolding to Gerald's does not fit within "the performance of ongoing operations for the additional insured at the locations designated." The connection between Paul's (the named insured) and Gerald's (the additional insured) is not sufficient to even suggest the possibility of coverage for Gerald as an additional insured under Paul's CGL.

In sum, unless the requisite connection between the named insured and additional insured is established, coverage is not available for the additional insured, regardless of fault or any other terms contained in the additional insured endorsement. In other words, this is the first cut—if you can't get past this issue, there is no coverage for the additional insured.

Part 2 deals with the scope and order of coverage, and Part 3 addresses additional exclusions, coverage restrictions, and conditions.

Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

© 2000-2015 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.