Recent case law demonstrates that when agreeing to add a party as an additional insured, careful risk management requires explicit and unambiguous insurance provisions to properly assign risk.

In Marshall v. Raritan Valley Disposal, the New Jersey Appellate Division interpreted an “additional insured” provision to find broad coverage where the parties may not have expected it. The decision also highlights the slippery slope of conferring and receiving additional insured coverage. It is a cautionary tale about the importance of being precise in both your contract and insurance policy documents to ensure that the parties’ expectations are identified and met.

Please see full alert below for more information.