'Additional Insureds' Can Add To Policy Confusion

Law360, New York (April 16, 2012, 5:13 PM EDT) -- Recent case law demonstrates that when agreeing to add a party as an additional insured, careful risk management requires explicit and unambiguous insurance provisions to properly assign risk.

In Marshall v. Raritan Valley Disposal[1], the New Jersey Appellate Division interpreted an “additional insured” provision to find broad coverage where the parties may not have expected it. The decision also highlights the slippery slope of conferring and receiving additional insured coverage. It is a cautionary tale about the importance of being precise in both your contract and...
To view the full article, register now.

UK Financial Services

UK Financial Services

Read Our Latest UK Financial Services Coverage

Financial Services Law360 UK provides breaking news and analysis on the financial sector. Coverage includes UK and European Union policy, enforcement, and litigation involving banks, asset management firms, and other financial services organizations.