July 26, 2014

Additional Insured Covered without Express Allegation of Vicarious Liability

In Pekin Ins. Co. v. Equilon Enters. LLC, 2012 IL App (1st) 111529; the court held that the additional insured was owed a defense under an endorsement limiting coverage to claims of vicarious liability, where the complaint alleged a “possibility” that the additional insured could be found liable, even solely, as a result of the acts or omissions of the named insured. 

In Pekin Insurance Company v. Equilon Enterprises, a customer at a Shell gas station was injured in an explosion that resulted from lighting a cigarette.  The customer filed a lawsuit asserting separate claims of negligence against the gas station and franchisor.  The alleged acts of negligence were identical and each count alleged that the party against whom the count was asserted “owned, operated and controlled the premises.”  Franchise agreements between the gas station and franchisor imposed a duty on the gas station to name the franchisor as an additional insured under the gas station’s liability policy.

Pekin, in its complaint for declaratory judgment, argued that the insurance policy at issue named the franchisor in two additional insured endorsements, one which limited coverage to negligence in the granting of a franchise, and the other limiting coverage to claims of vicarious liability.  Initially, Pekin argued that only the first endorsement applied and limited coverage to claims of negligence in the granting of a franchise.  Unsurprisingly, the court held that where there are two endorsements, each of which purported to provide coverage, an insurer cannot argue that only one controls, for that would “render meaningless the coverage provided by the second endorsement.”

As to coverage for vicarious liability, the court first distinguished cases where the additional insured was covered only to the extent that liability was incurred “solely” as a result of some act or omission of the named insured.  The court then reminded that it was Pekin’s duty to demonstrate that the allegations in the underlying complaint did not potentially fall within coverage, and, that it had failed to do so because there was a “possibility” that the franchisor could be found liable, even solely, as a result of the acts or omissions of the gas station.  The court ended by noting that the two endorsements, when read together, were ambiguous as one provided coverage for the negligent act of the franchisor, while the other, in the words of Pekin, limited coverage to the negligence of the gas station and not of the franchisor.

Concurring, Justice Gordon noted that the case was even more easily decided on the fact that the underlying complaint alleged that the franchisor “owned, operated and controlled the premises.”  Control being the “key element” of vicarious liability, Justice Gordon noted that the underlying complaint expressly alleged vicarious liability, bringing the franchisor within coverage under the second endorsement.

© 2014 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

About the Author


Eric Choi is an associate at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP where he provides innovative and concise legal services to his clients with the goal of reaching cost-effective resolutions. Eric represents clients in complex civil litigation matters, ranging from contract disputes and breach of warranty defense, to conspiracy claims and defamation defense. Eric also is experienced in a broad range of matters arising out of franchise agreements, including the scope and enforceability of territory restrictions, franchise termination and renewal considerations, and implied duties of good faith...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please