Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Robinette Demoltion, Inc., 994 N.E.2d 973

Cobra (named insured) had an ongoing subcontract agreement with Robinette requiring Cobra to procure CGL insurance naming Robinette and any other parties Robinette reasonably required as additional insureds (Schedule B).
Mt. Hawley issued a CGL policy to Cobra for 3/20/2008–3/20/2009 with standard notice provisions (notify insurer "as soon as practicable" of occurrences and claims) and an endorsement extending coverage to persons required by written contract.
For a February 2009 project (850 Lake Shore Drive), Robinette issued a work order incorporating the Agreement; Cobra provided a certificate of insurance (2/11/2009) naming Robinette and Valenti as additional insureds.
A Cobra employee (Bucholz) was injured on 2/25/2009; Robinette tendered defense to Mt. Hawley in November 2010 (about two months after suit filed); Cobra did not provide the insurer earlier notice of the occurrence.
Mt. Hawley sued for declaratory judgment denying duty to defend/indemnify (1) because Cobra breached the policy notice provision and (2) because Valenti was not an additional insured under the policy; the trial court granted Mt. Hawley summary judgment.
On appeal the court reversed: it held (a) the additional insureds’ compliance with their own notice duties sufficed despite Cobra’s breach, and (b) Valenti qualified as an additional insured based on the Agreement, the work order, and the certificate of insurance read together.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the named insured's failure to comply with the policy's notice provisions bar coverage for additional insureds who complied with their duties?	Mt. Hawley: Cobra's failure to notify as required excuses insurer's duty to defend/indemnify all insureds under the policy.	Defendants: Only Cobra (named insured) had the duty to give initial notice; additional insureds complied with their duty to forward suit papers and are entitled to coverage.	Court: Reversed — additional insureds who complied with their notice duties are entitled to coverage; coverage is not made contingent on Cobra's compliance.
Was Valenti an additional insured under the policy?	Mt. Hawley: The written-contract requirement was not satisfied as Valenti was not named in the subcontract Agreement; a certificate cannot, by itself, create contractual coverage.	Defendants: The Agreement, the work order (which incorporated the Agreement), and the certificate of insurance together satisfy the written-contract requirement to name Valenti.	Court: Reversed — construing the Agreement, work order, and certificate together satisfies the written-contract requirement; Valenti is an additional insured.

West American Insurance Co. v. Yorkville National Bank, 238 Ill. 2d 177 (policy language must be given its plain meaning)
American National Fire Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 343 Ill. App. 3d 93 (additional insureds must comply with forwarding-documents duty under notice clause)
Barrington Consolidated High School v. American Insurance Co., 58 Ill. 2d 278 (notice requirements apply to additional insureds under omnibus clauses)
Clarendon America Insurance Co. v. Aargus Security Systems, Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 591 (certificates of insurance generally do not, alone, create coverage inconsistent with policy)
Westfield Insurance Co. v. FCL Builders, Inc., 407 Ill. App. 3d 730 (additional insured status may require a direct written contract depending on policy wording)
USX Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 269 Ill. App. 3d 233 (parol/extrinsic evidence admissible to identify whether documents form one transaction or contract)