There was no ambiguity in the actual policy with respect to the named insureds. Kaufman & Company was not an additional insured under the policy, and the IAS Court's reliance on the "COVER NOTE" from the broker as the basis for that conclusion was misplaced. The court cannot create coverage where none exists by virtue of the fact that Kaufman & Company had an insurable interest in the stone and/or the anticipated finished products (see, Stainless, Inc. v...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.