The Washington State Supreme Court is being asked by the Ninth Circuit Court to rule on an insurance claim that pits Selective Insurance Co. against T-Mobile. T-Mobile (at the time operating as Omnipoint) hired a contractor in 2005, to install a rooftop antenna in the Bronx and allegedly damaged the building in the process.
Omnipoint contracted telecom construction firm Innovative to perform the work. In early 2013, the building owner notified T-Mobile and Innovative of alleged property damage that resulted from Innovative’s earlier work on the rooftop cell tower.
Innovative was required to maintain general liability insurance naming T-Mobile NE as an additional insured and, in the process, engaged Selective to provide the insurance coverage mandated under the Field Services Agreement (FSA). The legal issue is whether T-Mobile USA was entitled to coverage as an additional insured under a Selective insurance policy taken out by a contractor that provided services in connection with the tower’s construction.
After Selective denied coverage, T-Mobile USA filed suit against Selective in state court in Washington. Selective removed the case to federal district court, based on diversity jurisdiction. After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Selective’s motion for summary judgment, which resulted in the dismissal of all of T-Mobile USA’s claims. T-Mobile USA’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.
T-Mobile USA appealed the district court’s orders granting summary judgment and denying reconsideration. The Order certifies to the Washington Supreme Court. “a critical question of state law before us—namely, whether, under Washington law, the rule that an insurer is bound by representations made by its authorized agents overrides the rule that certificates of insurance cannot affect insurance coverage, when the latter rule is echoed by disclaimer language in the certificate at issue.”
Comments? Email us
November 14, 2018
