Travelers Indemnity Company has filed suit against ACE American Insurance Company, known as Chubb, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. At issue is which insurer is responsible for defending and indemnifying Clune Construction Company and a group of property owners in connection with a workplace accident at 1345 Avenue of the Americas.
The complaint, filed September 12, 2025, details a dispute rooted in contracts, insurance policies, and legal obligations. The underlying incident involves William Lovett, an employee of Karo Sheet Metal, who alleges he was injured on December 4, 2020, while working on a construction project at the premises. Lovett claims he slipped and fell on construction debris, suffering a torn meniscus in his right knee that required surgery and injuries to his left hip requiring hip replacement surgery. As of September 2025, Lovett’s workers’ compensation lien is nearly $83,000, and he is claiming special damages of nearly $500,000.
Lovett’s lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, names as defendants 1345 Leasehold LLC, 1345 Fee LLC, Fisher Brothers Management Co. LLC, Clune Construction Company, and Donnelly Mechanical Corporation. Over the course of the litigation, cross-claims have been filed, including Clune’s claims against Donnelly for indemnification and breach of contract.
According to the complaint, Clune’s subcontract with Donnelly required Donnelly to obtain general liability insurance from Chubb, naming Clune and the property owners as additional insureds “per form CG 2010 10 01.” The Chubb policy, as described in the complaint, includes an endorsement extending additional insured status “where required by written contract executed prior to loss,” and states that coverage for additional insureds shall be primary. Another endorsement provides that, for additional insureds, Chubb’s insurance will apply on a primary basis and Chubb “will not seek contribution from the other insurance available to the Additional Insured.”
Travelers, which issued a commercial insurance policy to Clune, states that its policy contains an “Other Insurance” provision specifying that coverage is excess over “[a]ny of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the insured when the insured is an additional insured, or is any other insured that does not qualify as a named insured, under such other insurance.”
Travelers alleges that it repeatedly tendered the claim to Chubb on behalf of Clune and the owners, but Chubb denied coverage, stating that the accident “was not caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of Donnelly or by the acts or omissions of those acting on their behalf, in their performance of their ongoing operations for Clune and the Owners at the project.” As a result, Travelers claims it was forced to provide a defense to Clune and the owners and seeks a declaratory judgment that Chubb must defend and indemnify Clune and the owners as additional insureds on a primary basis, with Travelers’ coverage excess. Travelers also seeks reimbursement for defense costs incurred.
The case underscores the complexities of additional insured endorsements, primary versus excess coverage, and risk transfer in the construction insurance sector.
Note: This article is based on allegations in a complaint; no facts have been established by the court.
