Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

February 28, 2020 | Blog Post| Information or Indemnity: Do Certificates of Insurance Grant Insured Status?

Often, a person or entity that is attempting to claim additional insured status under the insurance policy of another will rely on a “Certificate of Insurance” that was issued by the named insured’s agent.  However, there are some considerations an insurer should take into account when presented with such a document before affording coverage to a certificate holder.

Frequently, the insurance agent or producer issuing the certificate will use the ACORD form.  This form clearly states at the top that

This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder.  This certificate does not affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies below.  This certificate of insurance does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representatives or producer, and the certificate holder. 

It further states, “Important: if the certificate holder is an additional insured, the policy(ies) must be endorsed.” 

The majority rule is that a certificate of insurance that contains such language will not bind the insurer unless the agent who issues the certificate is acting pursuant to authority granted by the insurer.[1]  Florida caselaw that explicitly adopts this position is scarce.  However, in a footnote to Official Cargo Transp. Co., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court below that coverage was not afforded under the certificate of insurance.[2]  The appellate court indicated that the “certificate of insurance did not in any way evidence that [the insurer] had agreed to the addition of [the certificate holder] as a named insured.”[3]  Thus no coverage was afforded and the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.[4]  In Nexus Properties, Inc. v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida relied on this commentary to rule that the certificate holder seeking coverage was not an insured under the policy.[5]  The certificate did not create coverage or any legal obligations between the insurer and the certificate holder.[6]

A couple of notable exceptions to this general rule do exist in Florida.  The insurer should review all the facts available to it before concluding the certificate holder is not an insured.  As mentioned above, one exception exists under Florida law in the rare instance when the producing agent acts with authority granted by the insurer.  Another exception arises where the insurance policy affords coverage to the certificate holder irrespective of the certificate.  There are several instances where this situation may arise.  A couple of common examples include policy provisions that provide coverage as a result of a contractual obligation and provisions that provide coverage to the permissive user of an automobile.

Before denying coverage to a person or entity seeking insured status, an insurer should consult with an attorney to determine whether any policy provisions afford coverage irrespective of the certificate of insurance, whether the producing agent acted with authority granted by the insurer, or whether any other exceptions may apply under the State’s laws that govern the insurance policy’s interpretation.


[1] Mountain Fuel Supply v. Reliance Ins. Co., 933 F.2d 882, 889 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Absent a plain manifestation of the intent to incorporate a certificate or endorsement into an insurance policy, the policy will remain in force as originally written.  The majority view is that where a certificate of insurance, such as the ACORD certificate, expressly indicates it is not to alter the coverage of the underlying policy, the requisite intent is not shown and the certificate will not effect a change in the policy”) (citations omitted); Taylor v. Kinsella, 742 F.2d 709, 711 (2d Cir. 1984) (“As a general rule, where a certificate or endorsement states expressly that it is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, the language of the policy controls.  This rule accords with the widely recognized principle that the intent to incorporate additional papers into an insurance policy must be plainly manifest”) (citations omitted).  Trapani v. 10 Arial Way Assocs., 755 N.Y.S.2d 396, 399 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (“[A] certificate of insurance which expressly states that it is a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder... is insufficient, by itself, to show that such insurance has been purchased.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James of Washington, 184 F. Supp. 2d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (“[W]hen a certificate of insurance contains language stating that the certificate does not amend, extend, or alter the terms of any insurance policy mentioned in the certificate, the terms of the certificate are subordinate to the terms of the insurance policy. The certificate of insurance will not suffice to create insurance coverage if such coverage is precluded by the terms of the policy.”).

[2] Official Cargo Transp. Co., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 143 Fed. Appx. 173, n.1 (11th Cir. 2005).

[3] Id

[4] Id.

[5] Nexus Properties, Inc. v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 2008 WL 11399625, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2008).

[6] Id.


Michael Bayern | ASSOCIATE

Third-Party Coverage and Extra-Contractual

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

September 08, 2020 Blog PostDoes the Pollution Exclusion Bar Coverage for Injuries Arising out of Viruses and Bacteria?

In policies without a specific bacteria or virus exclusion, there is an arguable basis for insurers to rely on a pollution exclusion to exclude coverage for claims for bodily injury resulting from an occurrence involving bacteria or viral “contaminants...

Read More »
June 25, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips | Little Black Box

Join us for this week's Thursday Tip as attorney Paola Solano discusses the use of ECMs in Third-Party vehicle claims.

Read More »
June 19, 2020 Blog PostIs Amazon a Seller? An Issue Primed for State Courts

The tide is turning as another federal court declares that Amazon is responsible for third-party products purchased on its website. On January 7, 2020, the Southern District of Texas in McMillian v. Amazon.com joined the Third Circuit court of Appeals and the Western District of Wisconsin in finding that Amazon can be a “seller” under the applicable state product liability statutes.

Read More »
June 01, 2020 Blog Post13 Ways That COVID-19 Will Change the Insurance Industry

Some people will have permanent complications from the Coronavirus , which will create a new population with pre-existing conditions. This may result in either more “eggshell Plaintiffs” or in an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition in an MVA...

Read More »
May 13, 2020 Blog PostIt's a Policy, Not a Payday Loan: The Voluntary Payments Provision Deconstructed

From time to time, the issue of whether an insurer has a duty to reimburse a payment made by an insured without the permission of the insurer is analyzed by a court.  A standard ISO form in a Commercial General Liability policy contains the following, or similar provision...

Read More »
May 06, 2020 Blog PostMembers Only: The Eleventh Circuit Restricts Membership to the "Illusory Coverage" Club to Narrow Set of Circumstances

The Doctrine of Illusory Coverage is a common law doctrine that Florida courts have confirmed is a part of Florida’s insurance law. See e.g., Zucker for BankUnited Financial Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co., 856 F.3d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017)...

Read More »
April 02, 2020 Blog PostDuke v. Hoch Standard Survives Challenge in Eleventh Circuit

In a recent decision, QBE Specialty Ins. Co. v. Scrap Inc., Nos. 18-13926 and 19-13894, 2020 WL 1228648 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the insured failed to carry the burden of proving allocation of damages between covered and uncovered claims...

Read More »
February 26, 2019 Blog PostTHE MARKOVITS DECISION: CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Recently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held that for purposes of determining the timeliness of a proposal for settlement, the complaint is considered served on the insurer when process is served upon the statutory agent, Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, and not when process is forwarded by the Chief Financial Officer to the insurer.  Markovits v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) rehr’g denied (Feb. 5, 2018).

Read More »
December 14, 2018 Blog PostDrone Accident Excluded Under CGL Policy's Aircraft Exclusion

In the most recent edition of our book, Butler on Drones, we reported that ISO has issued specific exclusions for unmanned aircraft for inclusion into CGL policies, but it was an open question whether a CGL policy’s standard aircraft exclusion already excluded coverage for liability arising from the use of a drone. A California federal district court has now weighed in on the question – the first to do so, as far as we are aware. And we like the answer.

Read More »
October 10, 2018 Blog PostRecent Federal Court Decision May Alter the Reservation of Rights Landscape in South Carolina

Only 15 months ago, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court fundamentally changed the reservation of rights landscape in South Carolina. Since Harleysville, two questions have remained: When must an insurer issue a reservation of rights letter to avoid waiving its rights, and what level of explanation is sufficient to avoid waiver?

Read More »
September 19, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence: Civil Authority and Ingress/Egress Coverage

The hurricane may trigger civil authority or ingress/egress coverage for businesses that are not directly damaged but lose income because they cannot access their operations for a period of time due to a governmental evacuation order.

Read More »
September 10, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence is aiming for the Carolinas

Once Hurricane Florence passes through the region, insurance professionals can expect a deluge of claims activity. While both North Carolina and South Carolina have felt the effects of recent Hurricanes Irene and Matthew, for example, many insurance professionals have limited familiarity with the particularized coverage issues which may arise in both states. Navigating the laws of both states, which can be both parallel and disparate, is going to be important in Florence’s aftermath.    

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »
August 09, 2017 Blog PostTO FEE OR NOT TO FEE, THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FINDS COVERAGE FOR PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SANCTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER AN AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY IN MACEDO II

Due to its holding in Macedo II, the Florida Supreme Court created a situation where, arguably, many auto policies now provide coverage for attorney’s fees and expenses awarded against an insured following an adverse verdict triggering the penalties under a proposal for settlement.

Read More »
August 08, 2017 Blog PostHoly Harleysville! – The Rules Governing RORs, Intervention, and More in South Carolina Have Just Changed

For insurers, litigating third party coverage disputes in South Carolina has always proved formidable.  Insurers can be liable for “bad faith” even if there is no coverage; they may be required to pay an insured’s attorney’s fees if the insurer commences a coverage action against its insured and loses ; and extra-contractual claims may proceed simultaneously with a breach of contract claim.

Read More »
July 25, 2017 Blog PostThat Sinking Feeling: Sinkholes, Florida Law, and Some Questions Raised by The Recent Collapse in Land O' Lakes

The recent catastrophic ground cover collapse in Land O’Lakes attributed to a sinkhole highlights the unique aspects of Florida geology and the impact it can have on the risks faced by building owners and their insurers. In central and western Florida, the land generally consists of a layer of limestone topped by layers of clays and sands. The limestone is a vestige of the shells and skeletons of marine life deposited during prehistoric periods when that layer was at the bottom of shallow seas. Over time, limestone was formed and covered by layers of silts and sands. The limestone is slowly dissolved by groundwater, and constitutes part of the aquifer.

Read More »
March 07, 2017 Blog PostFederal Diversity Jurisdiction: Proving Citizenship of Limited Liability Companies

Jurisdiction gives a federal court the power to hear a case. Jurisdiction matters at the outset of a lawsuit. It matters during discovery. It even matters after summary judgment. Jurisdiction matters because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Read More »
February 16, 2017 Blog PostSurplus Insurers, Too, Can Rely on the Application to Interpret Policy

Section 627.419 of the Florida Statutes provides that “[e]very insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by any application therefor or any rider or endorsement thereto.”  This statute has not applied to surplus lines insurers since the “Zota-fix” legislation of 2009, which generally exempted surplus lines insurers from Chapter 627.

Read More »
September 08, 2015 Blog PostNJ: Insurers Still On The Hook To Pay Innocent Parties Under Fraudulent Policies

The decision offers further guidance in the somewhat inconsistent world of rescission and automobile policy statutes, which – when accounting for the application misrepresentation, policy, and statutes – can be a tricky process.

Read More »
April 08, 2015 Blog PostFourth Circuit Sets Stage For Interpreting Contingent Business Interruption

CBI insurance provides coverage for loss of sales or revenue sustained when business is interrupted due to property damage that occurs away from the insured premises and, consequently, disrupts the flow of goods and services from/to a supplier or customer (referred to as the “dependent” or “contributing” properties). There are a limited number of cases discussing issues relating to CBI insurance; and the Fourth Circuit’s ruling provides greater clarity as to what constitutes a “direct” supplier, which is a common...

Read More »
April 06, 2015 Blog PostIt's a "Storm Surge" -- not a "Flood"!

Both parties cited to the SEACOR Holdings, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 635 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2011) case. The SEACOR case held that flood limits did not apply to Hurricane Katrina-generated water damage. In the SEACOR policy, there were definitions for flood, windstorm and named windstorm. The definition of windstorm and named windstorm did not include the phrase “storm surge,” but the definition of flood included wind-driven water. The SEACOR court held that all damage caused by Katrina was the result of a named windstorm...

Read More »
September 26, 2014 Blog PostWhen It Comes to Sinkholes, Contracts, Statutes and Regulations Do Matter

On August 21, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Shelton v. Liberty Mutual, Case number 13-15371 / D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-02064-JSM-AEP. This decision confirms that the statutory definitions for structural damage under the May 17, 2011 amendments to the Florida sinkhole statutes apply to property policies issued after those amendments were enacted. The court’s order reversed the positions taken by the District Court that seemed bent on plotting a new course for Florida jurisprudence.

Read More »
July 24, 2014 Blog PostThe Emperor's New Property Damage?

For many years, Florida courts appeared to say that general liability insurance policies did not cover a subcontractor’s faulty work that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. That all changed with the Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in United States Fire Insurance Company v. J.S.U.B., Inc., in 2007. In J.S.U.B. the court found that present GL policies covered the faulty work of a subcontractor that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. The reasoning used by the J.S.U.B. court to reach that conclusion would seem to also apply to claims for property damage to a subcontractor’s work that resulted from the subcontractor’s faulty work. However, courts applying Florida law have not yet found this to be so, and in fact say just the opposite.

Read More »

Key Points