Background

A Brooklyn roofer used a small New Jersey broker to obtain comprehensive general liability coverage. Neither the roofer nor the broker was sophisticated but it was clear the coverage was to name the general contractor – as an “additional insured”.

The Challenge

With a declination by the carrier to the general contractor there was a withholding of substantial sums due to an alleged breach – failure to have the general contractor named.

The Solution

We commenced a coverage case against the broker and the carrier. During the litigation it became apparent that neither the broker nor the roofer was the problem – the carrier ultimately admitted that coverage had been placed including the requested endorsement.

Result

With proof of compliance with the insurance requirement, the impediment to payment was removed.