Is an Additional Insured Entitled to a Loss Run Statement?
According to the Florida Senate's bill analysis and fiscal impact statements, the legislation is intended to create a "statutory framework regarding when and how insurers are required to provide loss run statements to insureds," with the expectation that same may possibly "help consumers with favorable claim histories to obtain insurance at a lower premium."
December 28, 2020 at 01:55 PM
5 minute read
This year, the Florida Legislature promulgated two sections to the Florida Statutes, which require surplus lines and authorized insurers to "provide" an "insured" with a "loss run statement" within 15 calendar days after receipt of a written request for such information. See Fla. Stats. Sections 626.9202(2), 627.444(2). According to the Florida Senate's bill analysis and fiscal impact statements, the legislation is intended to create a "statutory framework regarding when and how insurers are required to provide loss run statements to insureds," with the expectation that same may possibly "help consumers with favorable claim histories to obtain insurance at a lower premium." The sections include pertinent definitions to facilitate their interpretation and application with these goals in mind, including setting forth precise definitions for the statutory terms "provide" and "loss run statement." See Fla. Stats. Sections 626.9202(1)(a)-(b), 627.444(1)(a)-(b) (defining "provide" as "to electronically send a document or to allow access through an electronic portal to view or generate a document" and defining "loss run statement" as "a report that contains the policy number, the period of coverage, the number of claims, the paid losses on all claims, and the date of each loss"). The sections do not, however, define the term "insured."
It is fair enough that, in the ordinary case, there is unlikely to be a dispute about whether or not a person requesting information regarding claims made under an insurance policy qualifies as "an insured" under that policy. Circumstances can certainly arise, however, when it is unclear whether one qualifies as an "insured." Such a situation perhaps most frequently occurs when a person or entity claims that (s)he or it qualifies as what is known as an "additional insured" under an insurance policy. Typically, a "named insured" is the person or entity who pays for the policy's premiums and whose name is listed on the face of the policy's declarations. An "additional insured," on the other hand, is someone else who is sometimes entitled to treatment as an insured under the named insured's policy for certain claims, or in certain circumstances, based upon an endorsement that has been added to the policy. Such endorsements to commercial general liability insurance policies usually impose certain conditions that must be satisfied for an additional insured to qualify as such. For example, some such endorsements state that such and such a person only qualifies as an additional insured for claims alleging that such person is liable because of work performed for him/her/it by the named insured. Others, by way of further example, may state that one's additional insured status exists only if there is a written contract entered into between the named and putative additional insured requiring that the latter be treated as an insured. And still others may qualify one's additional insured status by stating it exists only on an excess basis, over and above such person's other available insurance coverage as an additional insured.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Initial Steps to Set Up a Fla. Appeal: Your Future Self (or Appellate Attorney) Will Thank You
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Family Court 2024 Roundup: Part I
- 2In-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
- 3A Simple 'Trial Lawyer' Goes to the Supreme Court
- 4Clifford Chance Adds Skadden Rainmaker in London
- 5Latham, Kirkland and Paul Weiss Climb UK M&A Rankings
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250