Being a Named or Additional Insured Not Always Necessary for Coverage

ADJUSTING TODAY

Adjusters International Disaster Recovery Consulting

Being a Named or Additional Insured Not Always Necessary for Coverage

By Donald S. Malecki, CPCU

Having the status of “additional insured” has become such a popular subject that everyone seems to think it is a magic solution to obtaining coverage under all kinds of policies. In reality, whether being an insured is necessary — named or additional — depends on the circumstances. What can lead to trouble is when a policy requires that an insured be specifically named for purposes of covering its insurable interest in property — but the individual entity merely asks to be an additional insured and nothing more. These kinds of requests are frequent and are made because the entity is under the mistaken impression that being an additional insured applies to all coverages; in fact, additional insured...

FROM THE EDITOR

True or false: the only parties that can receive proceeds froman insurance claim settlement are those the policy specifically identifies as named or additional insureds. Widespread belief might say this statement is true. But it is not always. There are circumstances under whichmodern insurance policies can apply coverage to non-insureds. The most prominent of these are discussed in this issue of Adjusting Today, authored by Donald Malecki. Mr. Malecki was one of the most renown insurance experts and authors of our time and remained keenly involved in the industry until his recent passing. His legacy continues to be enlightening to all who could be impacted by an insured loss with information that can help them recover—especially by better understanding the sometimes little-known intricacies of insurance protection. It is in that spirit that we are pleased once again to share Mr. Malecki’s wisdom. Sheila E. Salvatore Editor


RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NjIxNjMz