Selective Ins. Co. of South Carolina v. Target Corp.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-insurance company seeking declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant in underlying action alleging that defendant’s customer incurred personal injuries from fitting room door supplied by insured, where defendant asserted that it was additional insured under terms of policy issued by plaintiff due to supplier agreement between defendant and insured. Supplier agreement required insured to name defendant as additional insured in commercial general liability policy, and that plaintiff’s policy promised to pay for bodily damages arising out of said fitting doors. Moreover, while language in customer’s personal injury action focused on defendant’s alleged negligence, allegations in said complaint fell within policy’s coverage where: (1) customer asserted bodily injuries arising out of insured’s door; and (2) defendant’s third-party action alleging that defendant was negligence with respect to door’s design and materials used in door fell within policy’s coverage. Also, plaintiff was responsible for entire settlement amount that defendant had negotiated with customer, where, although there was no evidence indicating allocation of settlement between covered and uncovered claims, defendant made settlement of otherwise covered loss in reasonable anticipation of liability in customer’s lawsuit.