|
3309 The fact that an insured contractor built a house as a joint venture with another builder did not materially alter the insurer's risk and was not a valid basis for the insurer to deny coverage; however, the insured’s failure to comply with a policy term requiring it to have subcontractors name it as an additional insured in their policies prejudiced the insurers sufficiently to justify denial of coverage.CitationSCOTTSDALE INS v ESSEX INS (Joint Venture) 98 CA4 86 [See: American Continental v American Cas 73 CA4 508, T/AT 8/99; Truck v Unigard 79 CA4 966, T/AT 5/00]
|
|
