Zurich faces bad faith allegations after denying additional insured coverage tied to a student's death at a lineman college.
A dispute over whether an unsigned purchase order counts as an "executed" contract is now at the center of a coverage fight between Zurich American Insurance Company and a group of plaintiffs who say the insurer wrongly refused to defend them in a multimillion-dollar wrongful death claim.
NLC CA, Inc., which operates Northwest Lineman College in Oroville, California, along with its affiliate Quanta Services, Inc. and two individuals, filed a suit against Zurich in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on February 20, 2026. The case is styled NLC CA, Inc. et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2:26-at-00332. No final determination has been made in the matter.
The underlying claim stems from a March 25, 2024 incident in which Carlos Mendoza, a student at the college, was killed when a 25-foot utility pole broke apart during a training exercise, flinging him to the ground. The pole had allegedly been supplied by Weekes Forest Products, Inc. under a December 2022 purchase order that required Weekes to carry commercial general liability insurance, including products-completed operations coverage, and to name the buyer and its affiliates as additional insureds on a primary and non-contributory basis.
Weekes was a named insured under a Zurich CGL policy. That policy's additional insured endorsement extended coverage to any person or organization the named insured was required to add under "a written contract or written agreement executed by you," provided the bodily injury was caused "in whole or in part" by the named insured's work and fell within the products-completed operations hazard.
After the Mendoza family filed a wrongful death action, the plaintiffs tendered their defense to Zurich. The insurer allegedly denied coverage, taking the position that the purchase order was "not a written contract or written agreement, executed by Weekes." Zurich also allegedly demanded proof that the pole involved in the accident had been provided by Weekes and that the death had been caused by Weekes' product.
The plaintiffs pushed back, arguing that the policy never defines "executed" and that the term could reasonably refer to Weekes' performance of the purchase order - not just a signature. They also pointed to a years-long course of dealing between NLC and Weekes involving purchase orders with the same insurance and indemnity terms. Zurich, they allege, ignored those arguments and simply repeated its original denial.
The suit seeks a declaration that Zurich is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs, along with actual and punitive damages. At its core, the case raises a question that resonates across the industry: when an insurer's policy requires a "written contract or written agreement executed by" the named insured, does a purchase order that was received, performed, and paid — but never signed — meet that threshold?
For insurers, brokers, and risk managers, the answer could reshape how additional insured obligations are evaluated in vendor and contractor relationships nationwide.
