Insurance – Duty to Defend – Commercial Lines Policy – Separation of Insureds

Insurance – Duty to Defend – Commercial Lines Policy – Separation of Insureds (access required)

Universal Insurance Co. v. Burton Farm Development Co. In an underlying lawsuit, a subcontractor alleges that the defendant-developer’s project manager defamed the subcontractor and intentionally caused a breakdown of the contractual relationship between the subcontractor and the developer. Even though the project manager’s commercial lines insurance policy – which names the developer as an additional insured — contains an exclusion for injury “done by or at the direction of the insured with knowledge of its falsity,” since the policy treats each insured separately, the insurer is required to defend the developer against the subcontractor’s claims against it.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Criminal Practice – Plain Error Review – Jury Instructions – Kidnapping (access required)

State v. Boyd We reverse for the reasons stated in Judge Stroud’s dissent: Since there was overwhelming evidence of confinement and restraint, defendant has not shown that, absent the instruction on removal, the jury probably would have returned a different verdict.

Labor & Employment – Contract – OB/GYN – Hospital – Private Practice (access required)

Halifax Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Brown Where the plaintiff-hospital and the third-party defendant-medical practice were not in a joint venture, the practice’s termination of the defendant-doctor’s employment did not excuse his performance under his contract with the hospital.

Labor & Employment – Unemployment Compensation – Resignation – New Vehicle Policy (access required)

King v. North Carolina Department of Commerce Despite petitioner’s testimony that he did not believe $60 per week was enough to compensate him for the wear and tear that would be caused to his personal vehicle by a 212-mile roundtrip commute to work, the respondent-agency could find that plaintiff failed to show he had good cause to resign when the respondent-employer stopped providing vehicles to its employees and instead started paying for gas plus $60 per week for wear and tear to the employees’ personal vehicles.