Dist.Ct. erred in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that defendant was not covered as “additional insured” under policy issued by plaintiff to third-party for purposes of covering losses arising out of accident incurred by employee of third-party while on defendant’s premises, where Dist. Ct. found that requisite certificate of insurance naming defendant as additional insured had come too late in that third-party requested plaintiff to issue said certificate within hours after said accident occurred. Record contained conflicting evidence as to whether oral agreement between defendant and third party to add defendant as third party occurred prior to accident, and language in policy was ambiguous as to whether certificate had to be issued prior to date of accident in order for policy coverage to apply to instant accident.
