2013 ISO form changes for Additional Insured Endorsements try to limit coverage to an indemnity agreement.
The insurance afforded to such additional insured described above…Will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured.
Is this enforceable? Referring to a third party contract as a means to dictate coverage terms could possibly be a violation of state insurance regulations. After all, the third party contract could not have been filed with the form when seeking state insurance department approval. Also the contract terms are not set forth in the endorsement – so there is an ambiguity as to what they say and how they would limit coverage. Finally, the policy itself usually has a clause stating that it contains all the agreements between the insurance company and the policy holder. Does it then? I am anxious to see how the courts interpret this new endorsement change.
Do you all agree with my assessment here? Have you given this any additional thoughts? Please let me know what you think are some obstacles to the new language.