Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff judgment on pleadings in action seeking declaration that defendant insurance company had duty to defend property owner and property manager in underlying action by worker at construction site seeking recovery for personal injuries incurred at said site. Record showed that worker’s employer issued Certificate of Liability that identified defendant as commercial general liability insurance insurer, worker’s employer as insured and property owner and property manager as additional insureds in said policy issued by defendant, and that said policy had clause limiting ability of worker’s employer to add property owner and property manager as additional insured to circumstances where liability arose out of employer’s operations performed for property manager and property owner. While defendant argued that limitation precluded any duty to defend property owner or property manager because employer did not sue his employer in underlying lawsuit, said limitation did not eliminate defendant’s duty to defend in underlying lawsuit because property owner’s and property manager’s liability for worker’s injuries arose in part out of worker’s employer’s then-ongoing operations performed for property owner and property manager. Moreover, where several other defendants in underlying lawsuit filed contribution complaints against worker’s employer, said complaints further demonstrate that worker’s employer might be at fault so as to negate limitation in policy and to give rise to defendant’s duty to defend property owner and property manager in underlying lawsuit.