A showdown over insurance coverage has erupted in Maryland, where elevator giant TK Elevator Corporation is taking Hartford Casualty Insurance Company to court for allegedly refusing to pay up after a fatal workplace accident.
Filed on Aug. 25, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the complaint lays out a story that will sound familiar to anyone in the commercial insurance world: a big project, a tragic accident, and a dispute over who should pick up the tab when things go wrong.
TK Elevator, formerly known as thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation, says it hired Nichols Contracting, Inc. to handle electrical work on a modernization job at Bayside Center 1. According to the complaint, Nichols agreed to add TK Elevator as an additional insured on its commercial general liability and umbrella/excess liability policies. The agreement specified minimum coverage limits of $2 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for general liability, and $5 million for umbrella/excess liability. Hartford issued these policies and provided a certificate of insurance to TK Elevator in January 2020, stating that TK Elevator was an additional insured with respect to general liability and umbrella insurance as required by the contract.
On July 31, 2020, a Nichols employee, Henry Hernandez, Jr., was killed while performing work on the project. The estate of Mr. Hernandez filed a wrongful death lawsuit on Aug. 16, 2021, with an amended complaint on Aug. 30, 2022, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida. The lawsuit sought damages for negligence related to the electrical work performed by Mr. Hernandez and other Nichols employees.
The complaint states that Hartford sold and issued two policies to Nichols, both covering TK Elevator as an additional insured on the day of the accident. The complaint alleges that Hartford’s primary policy provides broad coverage to TK Elevator as an additional insured and that the policies provide coverage to “Additional Insureds when Required by Written Contract [or] Written Agreement.” The policies state that organizations are additional insureds when Nichols has agreed in a written contract that such person or organization be added as an additional insured and that the injury occurs after the execution of the contract.
The complaint further alleges that Nichols’ president, Fred Nichols, conceded in deposition that only Nichols and its employees were at fault for causing Mr. Hernandez’s death. OSHA cited Nichols for lack of training, including safety training, for Mr. Hernandez and those working with him on the day of the accident.
TK Elevator claims it provided timely notice of the lawsuit to Hartford and made repeated demands for coverage, including defense and indemnity. The complaint alleges that Hartford failed to respond to the initial tender and subsequent letters, and ultimately denied coverage by letter dated August 25, 2023, claiming that “nothing in the pleadings that [sic] allege that Nichols’ acts or omissions (or those acting on its behalf) caused, in whole or part, the ‘bodily injury’ complained of.” TK Elevator disputes this, citing policy language that provides coverage to additional insureds for liability “caused, in whole or in part, by [Nichols’] acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on [Nichols’] behalf.”
The complaint states that the wrongful death lawsuit settled in principle on a confidential basis on or around Aug. 16, 2025, just before trial was set to begin on Aug. 18, 2025. TK Elevator alleges that it was forced to expend significant amounts for its own defense and to resolve the case, after Hartford declined to contribute to the settlement.
TK Elevator seeks a declaratory judgment that Hartford is obligated to provide coverage under the policies for the underlying lawsuit, as well as damages for breach of contract, including reimbursement of defense and settlement costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court deems just and proper.
This case presents issues regarding additional insured coverage, insurer response to tenders, and the interpretation of policy language in commercial contracts. The outcome may have implications for how insurers and policyholders approach similar coverage disputes in the commercial insurance sector.
