Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

December 11, 2014

New York Court of Appeals Denies Additional Insured Status to Building Owner Absent Express Requirement in Painting Contract

In 2008, the Metropolitan Opera hired Strauss Painting to strip and repaint the rooftop steel carriage track for the opera house's automated window-washing system. The contract required Strauss to purchase an "owners and contractors protective liability policy" (OCP) which would both protect the Met from bodily injury claims arising out of Strauss' operations, and also insure Strauss for liability arising out of its contractual obligation to indemnify and hold the Met harmless. The contract also required Strauss to purchase and maintain comprehensive general liability ("CGL") insurance.

In pertinent part, the contract provided under "Insurance Requirements":

b. Owners and contractors protective liability insurance with a combined single limit of $5,000,000.00. Liability should add the Metropolitan Opera Association as an additional insured and should include contractual liability and completed operations coverage.

Strauss, however, failed to obtain an OCP policy. When a worker was injured in a 2008 fall during Strauss's operations, and brought an action against the Met for damages, the Met sought liability coverage from Mt. Hawley pursuant to Strauss's CGL policy. The Mt. Hawley policy contained a standard endorsement including as an additional insured "any person or organization for whom [Strauss is] performing operations when [Strauss] and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on [Strauss's] policy."

The Met argued that paragraph "b." of the contract's Insurance Requirements constituted a written agreement which would qualify the Met for additional insured status under the Mt. Hawley CGL policy. Mt. Hawley argued that paragraph "b." addressed only OCP coverage, and did not address additional insured status for the Met under any CGL policy obtained by Strauss. In a lengthy decision the Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer that paragraph "b." addressed only OCP coverage (which, unfortunately for the Met, was non-existent), and noted that the contractual provisions regarding CGL coverage said nothing about additional insured coverage for the Met. Strauss Painting, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co., decided November 24, 2014.

The case is also noteworthy for the Court's holding that an insured's notice to its own insurance broker does not generally satisfy a requirement of notice to an insurer. Strauss notified its own insurance broker of the loss one day after it occurred. Three months later, the Met notified Strauss that it was looking for contractual indemnification for the worker's bodily injury claim; one month later, Strauss's broker alerted Mt. Hawley of the Met's claim, and the Met brought a third-party action against Strauss one month after that. The Court upheld Mt. Hawley's refusal to defend or indemnify Strauss against the Met's third-party action on the grounds of late notice. The Court noted particularly that (1) there was no close relationship between Strauss's broker and Mt. Hawley that would justify Strauss in considering notice to its broker as notice to the insurer (see, e.g., Mighty Midgets v. Centennial Insurance Co., 47 N.Y. 2d 12 (1979)); and (2) Strauss was a sophisticated corporate insured, which should know better than to expect notice of a loss to its own broker to be sufficient.

This decision illustrates the critical importance of carefully drafting and following the requirements for additional insured coverage for owners and contractors in construction contracts.

Should you have questions regarding the information presented in this alert, please contact Anthony J. Piazza, Chair of the firm's Insurance Coverage & Regulation Practice Area, at (585) 295-4420 or


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


CDPAP Providers Get First Look at the Future of CDPAP Without FIs


New York State Fiscal Year 2025 Budget: Implications for Employers Unpacked


Lab Providers Under Increased Scrutiny From Civil and Criminal Agencies for OTC COVID-19 Test Claims


NYS Appellate Court Dismisses Claim Based on Material Misrepresentations in Insurance Application


It's Not Over Yet. Turning Your Judgments Into Dollars.


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Danso, Martinez, Hedges, Thorne, Genwright, and Donet—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out