In his Commonsense Construction Law blog, Stan Martin asks the question “How do additional insured obligations work with subcontract flow-down clauses.” And he answers it with one word: “They don’t.”
“Unless the subcontract is carefully drafted, that is. So where the prime contract required the owner to be named as an additional insured, and the subcontract flow-down clause passed along the GC’s obligations to the owner, as the sub’s obligations to the GC, this did not by itself result in a requirement that the sub name the owner as an additional insured. That is one lesson from a New York court decision,” Martin explains.
He discusses Navigators Ins. Co. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. at length and concludes with two lessons to be learned.