is cincinnati insurance mr blonder scrim and the case for further proceedings this case has significant implications for predictability of insurance coverage among commercially contracting parties the case arises out of vita food products my client contracting with painters usa to paint by this facility at a time when vita was shut down unfortunately an accident happened while painters was in control of the facility frankly a drop off was put over the floor  he lived in a coma guy's yes he's in a coma in a vegetative state the rest of most likely of his life he pursued his worker's comp claims against painters usa and then filed a state court lawsuit against vita alleging a hazardous condition and personal injuries resulting from conduct of vital vital tender the pop the case to painters which had agreed to provide insurance divide as a condition of being allowed to paint the facility by some white also tendered to its own carrier as well just out of an abundance of caution vital understood at all times that had insurance coverage from painters for anything that would happen while painters painters usa said he didn't really recall but he had no reason to doubt mr morse's recitation of the agreement on insurance so with respect to whether or not there was an oral agreement we're not talking about a written agreement it's purely an oral agreement here for insurance the evidence is you could say disputed on that fact such that would preclude summary judgment judge chang however went farther than that he's recognized the disputed fact on that issue and then when said based on the policy language vita could not be insured in doing so i'll judge chang kind of walked away from the well established maximum that you interpret a policy or a look at the language of a policy in favor of coverage in fact judge change did the opposite he interpreted the policy in such a way to preclude cottage in this case rule for cincinnati there are two fundamental issues with respect to that insurance policy issue which seem to be before the court the parties have addressed them the first is the issue of the certificate of insurance having been issued the second deals with whether the oral contract was in fact performed with respect to the issue of shift give insurance the sure to fit on its face states that it conveys no rights it doesn't affect the legal rights of the parties and can and says it multiple places on the certificate of insurance which is in the record of two of the summary judgment well you haven't explained cincinnati insurances rule cincinnati insurance is the insurance company for painters usa for the company that came in to do the painting and was in control of the facility so again when the underlying lawsuit was tendered to cincinnati they'd deny coverage to vita saying that biden was not an additional insured under the policy and the issue they point to  extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies and then it goes on above that that's at the top also at the bottom there is a reference to congress so judge chang interpretive the certificate of insurance and a way of conveying rights because there's a factual issue here that he looked at and said while that will include the make it a little simpler so since that insures his insured who painters the insurance company for painters usa as to whether vita is an additional insured under the policy that's what this lawsuit is well how does that affect the the injured person what it affects the injured person as it affects insured by virtue of an oral agreement then it reads with painters and connection with contracting with painters to do the work at vitus facility can an oral agreement create a insurance under this assurance policy it can this insurance policy says it's either a written agreement or an oral agreement where a certificate of insurance has been issued that's the language of the policy this policy is different than many other cases and some of the one cited by cincinnati where it was required to be a written contract which is what the policy required in have you know there are other jurisdictions in which you have the state supreme court and turning your policy that way has it been interpreted before i'm not representing cincinnati i represent vita so i will be asking that judge on this point of an oral contract with shift of insurance we have found a couple of been issued language of the certificate of insurance she agreed with our position in this case there was also a case from the washington state washington state the federal district court there young we cited in our briefs to time page twelve but there the issue is a court granted summary judgment for insured again our position then that was reversed by the ninth circuit which said the insurance company was entitled to discovery in the underlying case because that was an issue that was raised there the principle of law that they were basing on doesn't change but the result changed because of the procedural posture of that case well is there reference to of document forty dash one and it says who is an insured automatic additional insured and it says any person or organization described in paragraph nine point eight two below whom you are required to add as an additional insured under this coverage part by reason of a or written a contract or agreement or be an oral agreement or contract where certificate of insurance showing that person organization as an additional ensure it has been issued so that's where the policy language in here this policy language may be different than many other policies which the stiffly require a written agreement and again that the purpose of the certificate insurance doesn't afford any rights it doesn't convey rights it's simply evidence of the oral agreement which is would be the purpose of the shift of insurance there of not conveying rights here what is that what it means when it says vita food products is shown as an additional insured yes so you're saying this certificate would spin is a matter of information confers no rights is just a way of recording  that's fine thank you mr blinder his court ruled upon however was that vita food could not demonstrate that this agreement if it occurred actually occurred prior to the accident which mr avant it was injured if you'll note on the certificate of insurance it's actually issued the day after the accident and in fact it's reflected in the record that wasn't even requested until after the accident so what we have here drawn from the facts is that these parties may have had an agreement certainly they had an agreement that there was supposed to be some painting done did that agreement also include a requirement be has been issued and that at that time has been issue as of one another was it and that's when when there's an oral agreement that there be insurance coverage and certificate has been issued then that party becomes an additional there's an accident well the prudent in order for a stranger to the policy to become an insured under the policy they have they have to meet the requirements until there is an oral agreement and a circular certificate has been issued but a food is not an insured under that continues any person described below whom you are required to add as an additional insured by reason of either a written contract and if there's a written contract we're done here there's no subsequent requirement of distributive insurance because we can we can look the written contract and see if the data and the terms and determine yes was that was that agreement in effect prior to the prior to last or was it not so a written contract or agreement is one way or so part b can oral agreement or contract loss that they seek to insure words that language well because they're not an insured this this that provision provides the means by which by the foods can become an insured there has to be an oral agreement and it has to be a certificate found in the policy language which again should be interpreted according to its plain ordinary reading in other words if it isn't if you if the court is not inclined to give facts to the past tense has been issued insurance in this case it allows cincinnati the party from coverage has been sought to know that perhaps these parties had an oral agreement and that perhaps it is something being devised a certificate of insurance is only fo parties did have an agreement whereby since that isn't even true agreed to obtain insurance coverage provided food the party seeking coverage here otherwise were left to the whims so to speak of the two parties but you're saying that at no time when this insurance was in fall was and was in force forgetting about painters but you're saying that when was this policy original policy when did that become effective but the policy was effective for the painting company painters you would say for some time there's no question about the effective date of the policy and overla right and stand so but you're saying that during during this period until the addition of vita food products when it was just painters being insured there was no certificate of liability which are correct because the certificate is issued in favor of vitae to say by the food this is a policy that the party with whom you've contracted painters you say this is a this is  policy you say a certificate of inch by villager is issued only after someone is added as an insured that's one of its functions and in this case it should let other functions it provides information regarding the type of coverage that then why wasn't any certificate ever filed before by her was in the picture because the only way the only person insured prior to that time was painters usa who has a policy their policy this is not a plate of food june interesting concept from cincinnati where there may not have been an agreement regarding insurance coverage one party where you know where i live and well that's an evidentiary it is and that will suppose they may have said made this or like agreement the day before that you have have him tied up to a lie detector something so so what difference does it make assuming that they really have this oral agreement what difference does it make i mean the financial because since money is a stranger to these oral agreements underlying agreements in order for since any two it leaves it wide open society has no no ability to know when these agreements are happening or not happening that's why they require particularly in the instance of an oral agreement with something well for me properly documented whenever it occurs right this is proper documentation and see if you think they're lying it is proper documentation and what we're asking is that the court give the facts to the plain language what i am asking for a reason so that they can't well it was issued the day after what if it was issued today then that then we would have the same are going we said no no you can't get a certificate of insurance for four years after the accident  and satisfy the problem of the additional insured or so you need because you have no reason you just have a technicality now we hired that they be insured under the policy for the last y in order so that we're not paying out under a policy for people that are insured could you reject could you rejected additional insured good cincinnati and now we're not we're not part of city underline agreement so if if our insurer again we're bound by the terms of the of the endorsement underline if the insured agrees in a written contract or an oral agreement with the certificate that they're going provide additional insured coverage than the party is able to to see coverage as an insured now of course subject to the to the policy terms but the very least then it becomes potentially an insured on the policy seems extraordinarily irresponsible of the insurance company to allow it to allow someone to change the insured or really the function of the of the comment of the certificate of insurance where is there a requirement that there prove the oral agreement there isn't it's up to the insured and the and so they could be they could be  an additional insured i don't know president putin of russia and you say fine anyone you want if there's an order if there's an oral agreement between president putin and the other party was just skeins question mr reed said well it's possible they came up with the sorel agreement after the action happened the record is devoid of any suggestion that there was any hourly agreement reached after the accident happened again testimony of mr morse which is included in the summary judgment motion lays clear that the discussion about the insurance happened at the time he contracted for the work it was months ahead of when the painters which is the insured under its own policy to provide coverage to vita so it's not the vitus comes out and says hey send us an issue a certificate of insurance create one painters agrees provide insurance it's policy lets it do that and here vida is left on fortunately at this point holding the back so we ask that you reverse and send us back we can proceed thank you k thank you very much