Construction Law

Ensuring Additional Insured Status in Construction Agreements

, New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments

In their Construction Law column, Kenneth M. Block and Joshua M. Levy discuss how the ruling in 'Gilbane Building v. St. Paul Insurance Co.' has heightened uncertainty among those who believe they are protected by their status as an additional insured under a policy, and advise that owners and their counsel should either review the language of the blanket additional insured endorsements carefully or require that any necessary entities be clearly named in specific additional insured endorsements.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202771865351

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.