Following an insurance coverage dispute that arose after substantial completion of Chicago's Deep Tunnel flood control project, a federal court in Illinois recently ruled in favor of coverage for a general contractor under the insurance policy belonging to a subcontractor.  Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Kenny Construction Co., No. 15-CV-03524, 2017 WL 4921970 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2017).  Specifically, the court held that the general contractor had received certificates of insurance demonstrating that it was an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy for underlying damages that resulted from a ruling in the underlying action that both the subcontractor and the general contractor were negligent in connection with a design change in the tunnel’s construction.  The court’s opinion is instructive for other policyholders on three key points.  First, certificates of insurance can be construed to reflect the parties’ intent to add another entity as an additional insured, and are not merely for “informational purposes,” as the insurer asserted.  “The additional insured representation has no value to [the additional insured] if not true.”  The court thus relied upon the certificates to identify the parties’ intent, which was to include the general contractor as an additional insured year after year.  Second, an insurer may have a duty to indemnify even in the absence of a duty to defend.  The court found that the policy provisions relating to indemnification did not contain the same limiting language found in those pertaining to the duty to defend, which required the existence of a suit.  As a result, when the two duties appear in separate contractual provisions, the duty to indemnify may very well exist in the absence of a duty to defend.  Third, the contractual liability exclusion will not apply to bar coverage for an underlying claim when the claim includes both negligence and breach of contract allegations.  In the underlying action here, the contracting agency’s repeated reference to the general contractor’s “negligence” in approving the design change that resulted in the leaks suggested to the court that the claims also had a tort-based component.