Does a party named as an additional insured under an insurance policy also qualify as an ”insured” under the policy for purposes of the interinsured exclusion? That was the question in a recent property damage case decided by the Second District Court of Appeal in California. Gemini Insurance Company v. Delos Insurance Company (12/5/12)

The case involved a commercial tenant and the tenant’s landlord. The tenant negligently caused a fire on the premises which damaged the landlord’s property. The landlord’s insurer paid the damages caused by the fire then sought subrogation from the tenant’s insurer. The tenant’s insurance policy named the landlord as an additional insured, which was required by the lease.