
This case illustrates the need for careful wording in an uninsured contractor endorsement.
In the recent case of LM Ins. Corp. v. James River Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189320 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2025), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to interpret an Uninsured Contractor Endorsement in the context of an additional insured tender.
After a construction accident, the owner and general contractor tendered to a subcontractor, DATO, who had hired plaintiff's employer, Star. Investigations later revealed that DATO did not have a written contract with Star for the work at issue. DATO's insurer, Arch, denied any obligation to provide coverage to all parties seeking coverage, including additional insureds, based on DATO's failure to comply with the "New York Limitation Endorsement," which requires that "you," defined to be Arch's named insured, obtain certain pass through protections from subcontractors for New York projects, including a written contract.
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com