A recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision highlighted the importance of the language of the policy over the terms of the lease when it comes to the entitlement of coverage as additional insureds. On April 29, 2020, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in Gateway Park, LLC v. Travelers Insurance Company and Stacie Garris, et al., reversed an order granting defendant, Travelers Insurance Company’s (Travelers) motion for reconsideration of an order granting plaintiff summary judgment and denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
This matter stemmed from a slip and fall accident in January of 2014, when plaintiff, Stacie Garris, fell in a parking lot at an office building owned by the plaintiff, Gateway Park, LLC (Gateway), in which ExamWorks, Inc. (ExamWorks), her temporary employer, was a tenant. Garris suffered injuries as a result of her accident and filed a personal injury suit against Gateway, ExamWorks, and Gateway’s snow and ice removal contractor, Ground Effects Construction, LLC.
Plaintiff, Gateway, originally sought a declaratory judgment that under its lease with ExamWorks, it was entitled to additional insured coverage under Travelers’ commercial general liability policy issued to ExamWorks. Gateway and defendant, Travelers, filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the plaintiff arguing that as an additional insured landlord it was entitled to coverage under the tenant’s insurance policy issued by Travelers. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion, finding that the plaintiff was an additional insured under Travelers’ policy, and as such, denied defendant’s motion.
At issue was the difference in the definitions and language set forth in the additional insureds sections of the lease agreement and policy. The lease agreement defined the “Premises” as the office space that defendant, ExamWorks, leased within Gateway’s building. The policy, on the other hand, set forth that an additional insured is entitled to coverage for accidents that arise “out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of that part of any premises leased to you [ExamWorks].”
The court found that Garris was employed by ExamWorks, drove to the building leased by Examworks, and fell in the parking lot near the front door as she was walking into work for ExamWorks. The Court found that despite the defendant’s contentions, the accident arose out of the “use of” the premises, and that the policy’s plain language outweighed the lease’s language.
Following the court’s decision to grant the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Travelers filed a motion to reconsider, which was granted by the court, thus granting summary judgment for the defendant. The court relied on the lease’s language to define the coverage under the policy.
Plaintiff appealed the court’s decision. The Appellate Division held that the court erred in granting Traveler’s motion to reconsider and reversed the court’s order. The Appellate Division, in reaching this decision, found that the language of the insurance policy was clear, and therefore, that the lease agreement should not have been considered. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the court’s order granting defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting the plaintiff summary judgment and denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.