A federal court in Georgia held that an additional insured endorsement does not extend to a putative additional insured for all liability relating to the named insured’s premises. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Shivam Trading, Inc., 2017 WL 2126911 (S.D. Ga. May 16, 2017) (appeal filed 11th Cir. June 14, 2017).
The underlying plaintiff slipped and fell at a convenience store owned by the named insured and operated by the putative additional insured. The named insured was found not liable, but the suit continued against the operator. The operator sought additional insured status under the named insured’s policy, and the insurer sought a declaration as to whether the additional insured endorsement applied. The endorsement provided additional insured status “but only with respect to liability … caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf in the performance of your ongoing operations or in connections with your premises owned by or rented to you.” The policy defined the terms “you” and “your” as referring only to the named insured shown on the policy’s declarations page. The underlying plaintiff argued that the policy terms “you” and “your” are ambiguous, and that the additional insured endorsement thus covered her claim against the additional insured. The underlying plaintiff and the insurer filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court found that the terms “you” and “your” unambiguously refer to the named insured alone and that the additional insured endorsement unambiguously does not extend coverage to all liability relating to the named insured’s premises.