A US construction insurance policy included provision for an additional liability insured as ‘any person or organisation with whom you have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract’. It was held the policy did not cover a project architect with whom there was no such direct written contract.
Because the endorsement included the word ‘with’, the agreement had to be between the principal insured and the architect. There was no such specific written contract.
The court refused to look at a sample certificate of insurance which the architect said raised a reasonable expectation of cover. Nor would the court rely on the contract between the employer under the contract and the architects which required the prime contractor to name the architects as an additional insured on all liability policies. These contracts did not amount to a specific agreement to insure between the contractor and the architect.
In another case dealing with a similar wording, Turner Construction Co v Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co., another US court made a similar finding and refused to add an insured because there was no direct contract with the insured that required the coverage.