Additional insured requirements have long been favored by parties as a method of allocating the risk of losses through the use of insurance. Particularly in the construction setting, such insurance procurement provisions have traditionally been coupled with contractual indemnity language but have had the added advantage of not being subject to anti-indemnity statute restrictions. Thus, while owners and general contractors were not able to contract away their own negligence, they were able to insure away their negligence to trade contractors’ insurers.
Recently however, there have been three trends curtailing the use of additional insured status as a means of risk transfer. The cumulative effect of these trends may signal a significant movement away from the ability of upstream parties to shift responsibility for paying claims.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
