Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 1 of 17

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Michael L. Schultz

Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & 

Patterson LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY

Kyle A. Lansberry

Lewis S. Wooton

Michael R. Giordano

Lewis Wagner, LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

ROADSAFE HOLDINGS, INC.

T. Allon Renfro

Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP

Chicago, Illinois

Robert P. Conlon

Joyce F. Noyes

Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP

Chicago, Illinois

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Walsh Construction Company,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Zurich American Insurance 

Company,

Appellee-Defendant,

March 28, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A04-1606-PL-1284

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable William E. Davis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

45D05-1506-PL-43
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 2 of 17

and

Roadsafe Holdings, Inc. d/b/a 

Roadsafe Traffic Systems, Inc.,

Appellee-Intervener.

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Walsh Construction Company (“Walsh”) appeals the trial court’s entry of 

summary judgment in favor of Zurich American Insurance Company 

(“Zurich”) on Walsh’s complaint for declaratory judgment. Walsh raises three 

issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial 

court erred when it entered summary judgment for Zurich. As a matter of first 

impression, we hold that a self insured retention endorsement to a commercial 

general liability insurance policy requires the named insured to satisfy the 

amount of the endorsement, whether on its own behalf or on behalf of an 

additional insured, before the additional insured may seek to enforce the policy

against the insurer. As that has not occurred here, we affirm the trial court’s 

entry of summary judgment for Zurich.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In January of 2009, Walsh, a general contractor, hired Roadsafe Holdings, Inc. 

d/b/a Roadsafe Traffic Systems, Inc. (“Roadsafe”) to be Walsh’s subcontractor 

in the construction of a traffic exchange involving Interstates 65 and 80 in Lake 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 3 of 17

County. Roadsafe’s work obligations included providing a safe traffic pattern 

through the work zone. Walsh’s contract with Roadsafe required Roadsafe to 

indemnify Walsh for any liability resulting from Roadsafe’s failure or 

negligence in its work. Accordingly, Walsh’s contract required Roadsafe to 

procure a commercial general liability insurance policy (“CGL policy”) that 

named Walsh as an additional insured on a primary and noncontributory basis.

[3] Roadsafe obtained its CGL policy from Zurich. The CGL policy defined 

Roadsafe as the “Named Insured” and stated that, “[t]hroughout this policy[,] 

the words ‘you’ and ‘your’ refer to the Named Insured . . . . The word ‘insured’ 

means any person or organization qualifying as such under Section II—Who Is 

An Insured.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 3 at 72. An endorsement attached to the 

CGL policy named as additional insureds any “person and organization where 

required by written contract,” such as Roadsafe’s contract with Walsh, “but 

only with respect to liability for ‘bodily injury’ . . . by your [Roadsafe’s] acts or 

omissions . . . .” Id. at 99. The CGL policy then provided as follows: “We 

[Zurich] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay 

as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ . . . to which this insurance applies. We 

will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking 

those damages.” Id. at 72.

[4] However, Roadsafe also obtained a $500,000-per-occurrence self insured 

retention endorsement (“the SIR endorsement”) to the CGL policy. The SIR 

endorsement amended the CGL policy as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 4 of 17

The insurance provided by this policy is subject to the following 

additional provisions, which in the event of conflict with any other 

provisions elsewhere in the policy, shall control the application of the 

insurance to which this endorsement applies:

1. Self Insured Retention and Defense Costs—Your Obligations

A. The “self insured retention” amounts stated . . . apply 

as follows:

1. If a Per Occurrence Self Insured Retention Amount is 

shown in this endorsement, you shall be responsible for 

payment of all damages and “pro rata defense costs” for each 

“occurrence”[] until you have paid damages equal to the Per 

Occurrence amount . . . .

* * *

B. Defense Costs

Except for any “defense costs” that we may elect to 

pay, you shall pay “pro rata defense costs” as they are 

incurred . . . .

C. Settlement of Claim

1. Within Self Insured Retention

If any final judgment or settlement is less than the “self 

insurance retention” indicated . . . above, you shall 

have the right and obligation to settle all such claims or 

suits . . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 5 of 17

2. Excess of Self Insured Retention

You may not settle any claim or suit which exceeds any 

“self insured retention” amount indicated . . . without 

our written permission to do so. . . .

* * *

H. Compliance

Compliance with the requirements set forth in this 

endorsement is a condition precedent to coverage. . . .

II. Our Rights and Obligations Excess of the Self Insured 

Retention

* * *

B. Damages Excess of Self Insured Retention—Per 

Occurrence or Per Claim

We shall be liable only for the amounts of our share of 

“pro rata defense costs” and damages in excess of the 

“self insured retention” amounts . . . above . . . .

* * *

D. Settlement of Claims

1. Within Self Insured Retention
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 6 of 17

We shall have, at our option, the right but not the 

obligation or duty[] to negotiate the settlement of any 

claim within the applicable “self insured retention” 

amount, which in our opinion is deemed expedient. 

But we shall obtain your consent prior to entering into 

any settlement of any claim which is equal to or less 

than the “self insured retention” amount. . . .

2. Excess of Self Insured Retention

With respect to any claim under this insurance which 

has been tendered to us and which may exceed the “self 

insured retention” amount shown . . . we have the right 

and duty to negotiate the settlement of such claim and 

may pay any or all damages and “defense costs” on 

your behalf, both within and excess of the applicable 

“self insured retention” amount. Any such payments 

made by us for damages or “defense costs” within the 

“self insured retention” amount shall be reimbursed 

promptly by you.

Definitions—

A. “Self insured retention” means:

the amount or amounts which you or any insured must 

pay for all compensatory damages and “pro rata 

defense costs” which you or any insured shall become 

legally obligated to pay because of damages arising from any 

coverage included in the policy.

* * *
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 7 of 17

D. “Occurrence[,]” for purposes of this endorsement only, 

means an “occurrence[,]” offense, accident, act, error or 

omission[,] or any other such similar event, as defined or 

used in our policy, that must occur in order to initiate 

payment of covered losses under the policy terms and 

conditions.

Id. at 68-71 (emphases added).

[5] On June 15, 2009, Boguslaw Maczuga was injured while operating his motor 

vehicle through the work zone’s traffic pattern. On June 27, 2011, Maczuga 

served Walsh with a Second Amended Complaint in which Maczuga alleged 

that Walsh had negligently created an unsafe traffic pattern.

1

 As a result of 

Maczuga’s complaint, on January 18, 2012, Walsh filed a third-party complaint 

against Roadsafe. In its complaint, Walsh alleged, in relevant part, that

Roadsafe had failed to indemnify Walsh and that Roadsafe had breached its 

contract with Walsh. Specifically, Walsh’s third-party complaint stated that

“[t]he Maczuga lawsuit seeks recovery from Walsh for its alleged negligence in 

connection with work that was to be performed by Road[s]afe” and that, 

“[f]ollowing service of process of the Maczuga lawsuit, Walsh tendered its 

defense and indemnity to Road[s]afe” but Roadsafe had “failed to either agree 

to indemnify or undertake Walsh’s defense.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 54-55.

 

1

 Maczuga’s complaint did not state a sum certain that he sought in relief.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 8 of 17

[6] Thereafter, Walsh notified Zurich, pursuant to the terms of the CGL policy, of 

Maczuga’s lawsuit and requested that Zurich defend Walsh in that suit. Zurich 

denied Walsh’s request, and Walsh filed a complaint for declaratory judgment 

against Zurich in which Walsh alleged that Zurich had a duty to defend and 

indemnify Walsh. Id. at 61-62. Roadsafe intervened in the declaratory 

judgment action, and the parties moved for summary judgment. After a 

hearing, the trial court entered summary judgment for Zurich, stating: 

Zurich has no contractual obligation to cover Walsh as an 

additional insured at this time. First of all, the policy is a liability 

policy between Zurich and Roadsafe and no person or entity has 

sued or even made a claim against Roadsafe for any type of 

negligence. Also there is a [SIR endorsement] that requires the 

insured to pay the first $500,000.00 of costs and damages of any 

claim before Zurich becomes obligated to pay out on the policy. 

Since there has been no claim for negligence against Roadsafe, 

Roadsafe has paid nothing and has made no claim under the 

policy.

Id. at 7. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Walsh appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Zurich. Our 

standard of review is clear:

We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the trial court: “Drawing all reasonable inferences in 

favor of . . . the non-moving parties, summary judgment is 

appropriate ‘if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there 

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Williams v. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 9 of 17

Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting T.R. 56(C)). “A 

fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the 

case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to 

resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the 

undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable 

inferences.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

The initial burden is on the summary-judgment movant to 

“demonstrate [ ] the absence of any genuine issue of fact as to a 

determinative issue,” at which point the burden shifts to the nonmovant to “come forward with contrary evidence” showing an 

issue for the trier of fact. Id. at 761-62 (internal quotation marks 

and substitution omitted). And “[a]lthough the non-moving 

party has the burden on appeal of persuading us that the grant of 

summary judgment was erroneous, we carefully assess the trial 

court’s decision to ensure that he was not improperly denied his 

day in court.” McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 

916 N.E.2d 906, 909-10 (Ind. 2009) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014) (alterations original to 

Hughley).

[8] Moreover, this appeal requires the interpretation of a contract. Interpretation 

and construction of contract provisions are questions of law. John M. Abbott, 

LLC v. Lake City Bank, 14 N.E.3d 53, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). As such, cases 

involving contract interpretation are particularly appropriate for summary 

judgment. Id. And because the interpretation of a contract presents a question 

of law, it is reviewed de novo by this court. Jenkins v. S. Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 

982 N.E.2d 343, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. We review the contract 

as a whole, attempting to ascertain the parties’ intent and making every attempt 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 10 of 17

to construe the contract’s language “so as not to render any words, phrases, or 

terms ineffective or meaningless.”2 Four Seasons Mfg., Inc. v. 1001 Coliseum, LLC, 

870 N.E.2d 494, 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “And, in reading the terms of a 

contract together, we keep in mind that the more specific terms control over any 

inconsistent general statements.” DLZ Ind., LLC v. Greene Cty., 902 N.E.2d 323, 

328 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[9] The question presented in this appeal is whether the SIR endorsement amended 

Zurich’s obligation under the CGL policy to defend Walsh.3 Again, under the 

CGL policy Zurich agreed to “pay those sums that the insured becomes legally 

obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ . . . to which this 

insurance applies,” which imposed upon Zurich “the right and duty to defend 

the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking those damages.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 3 

at 72 (emphasis added). On appeal, Walsh and Roadsafe both argue that the 

SIR endorsement amends only Zurich’s relationship to Roadsafe and that it 

 

2

 We reject Walsh’s characterization of the SIR endorsement as “exclusionary.” Appellant’s Br. at 15-16. In 

any event, as explained below we conclude that the SIR endorsement is unambiguous.

3

 The trial court concluded that “no person or entity has sued or . . . made a claim against Roadsafe for any 

type of negligence,” and Roadsafe argues on appeal that we should affirm the trial court’s entry of summary 

judgment on that basis. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 7. We cannot agree. Walsh’s third-party complaint 

against Roadsafe alleged that the underlying and allegedly negligent acts were Roadsafe’s and, as such, that 

Roadsafe had a duty to indemnify Walsh. In other words, Walsh’s third-party complaint seeks to transfer 

any liability under Maczuga’s original claim of negligence from Walsh to Roadsafe and expressly does so on 

the basis that the underlying and allegedly negligent acts were Roadsafe’s. Accordingly, we reject Roadsafe’s 

argument on appeal that we should affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on that basis. 

Similarly, we also reject Roadsafe’s argument that Walsh has not sufficiently alleged negligence on the part 

of Roadsafe for Walsh to have standing under the CGL policy as an additional insured. With respect to both 

of those arguments, Walsh’s third-party complaint against Roadsafe is sufficient for Walsh to invoke the 

CGL policy and its endorsements.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 11 of 17

does not amend Zurich’s obligations under the CGL policy with respect to 

Walsh. Zurich, on the other hand, contends that the SIR amount must be 

satisfied before Zurich can have any obligations under the CGL policy. We 

conclude that Zurich’s reading of the SIR endorsement properly harmonizes the 

totality of that document’s language and applies the SIR endorsement as it was 

intended to be applied.

[10] We have discussed SIR endorsements before, noting in particular the following:

There are key differences between . . . deductible[s], which 

generally exist in primary policies, and retained amounts, which 

generally are found in umbrella policies or policies designed to be 

excess of a self-insured amount. One difference is that while a 

deductible is subtracted from a policy’s limits, thereby reducing 

an insurer’s total obligation to the insured, the full limits of a 

policy including a retained amount are available to the insured 

once that amount has been satisfied. See Douglas R. Richmond, 

Issues and Problems in “Other Insurance,” Multiple Insurance and SelfInsurance, 22 Pepp. L. Rev. 1373, 1449 (1995). Another key 

difference is that in a policy with a deductible, the insurer retains 

complete control of claims handling; in a policy with a retained 

amount, the insurer has no claims handling responsibility, 

particularly with respect to claims not exceeding the retained 

amount. See id.

Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Langreck, 816 N.E.2d 485, 495 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) 

(footnote omitted). Similarly, we have noted that 

a policy with a deductible obliges the insurer to respond to a 

claim from “dollar one” (i.e., immediately upon tender), subject 

to the insurer’s right to later recoup the amount of the deductible 

from the insured. A policy subject to a SIR, in contrast, obliges 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 12 of 17

the policyholder itself to absorb expenses up to the amount of the 

SIR, at which point the insurer’s obligation is triggered.

Allianz Ins. Co. v. Guidant Corp., 884 N.E.2d 405, 410 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) 

(quotation marks and alterations omitted), trans. denied. Not surprisingly, “[a]n 

insured maintains a SIR in order to reduce the cost of premiums on its 

insurance policy.” Susan N.K. Gummow, No “SIR”! Insurer Can’t Avoid 

Payment If Insured Files For Bankruptcy, Am. Bankr. Inst. J., Apr. 2005, at 18.

[11] Both the Indiana Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly recognized 

that, as between an insurer and a single insured, the insurer’s responsibilities

arise only “[a]fter the self-insured retention amounts specified in the policies are 

satisfied.” Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd., 865 N.E.2d 571, 

576-77 (Ind. 2007); see also Thomson Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 11 N.E.3d 982, 

1010-11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (requiring the insured to show that “the SIR for 

each ‘occurrence’ has been satisfied before any of [the insurer’s] 

obligations . . . are triggered”), trans. denied. We have also held that “it is the 

responsibility of the policyholder to prove this condition precedent to 

coverage—SIR exhaustion—and unless and until it is able to do so, the duty to 

defend is not triggered.” Allianz, 884 N.E.2d at 420; see also Monroe Guar., 816 

N.E.2d 495-96 (holding that coverage is available to the insured once the SIR 

has been satisfied). But the question of whether a SIR endorsement applies 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 13 of 17

only to the insurer’s relationship to the named insured or also applies to 

additional insureds is a question of first impression for our courts.4

[12] In light of the plain language of the instant CGL policy and SIR endorsement, 

we agree with Zurich that it has no obligation to Walsh under the CGL policy 

until the $500,000 SIR amount has been satisfied.5 “Self insured retention” is 

defined within the SIR endorsement as “the amount or amounts which you or 

any insured must pay for all compensatory damages and ‘pro rata defense costs’ 

which you or any insured shall become legally obligated to pay because of 

damages arising from any coverage included in the policy.” Appellant’s App. 

Vol. 3 at 71. Thus, substituting the endorsement and policy definitions where 

appropriate, the SIR endorsement obliges the named insured as follows:

If a Per Occurrence [amount that the named insured or any 

additional insured must pay] is shown . . . , [the named insured] 

shall be responsible for payment of all damages and “pro rata 

 

4

 Further, none of the foreign authority cited by the parties is on all fours with the instant appeal. See Forecast 

Homes, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200, 203 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (identifying the issue on 

appeal as whether an additional insured could invoke an insurer’s obligation to defend by paying the SIR 

amounts in lieu of the named insured paying those amounts); FHP Tectonics Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 

57 N.E.3d 575, 584 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (concluding that the SIR endorsement, which stated that the insurer 

would “pay on behalf of the Insured,” applied to both the named insured and additional insureds); Am. Nat’l 

Fire Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 796 N.E.2d 1133, 1143-44 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (stating in dicta and 

based on a highly limited review of the SIR endorsement’s language that that endorsement “refers only to the 

named insured . . . and not to additional insureds . . . .”); see also Sherwood Constr. Co. v. Am. Home Assurance

Co., No. CIV-09-1395-HE, 2011 WL 6012605, at *4-5 (W.D. Okla. 2011) (reaching the same conclusion 

reached in FHP Tectonics).

5

 We reject Zurich’s suggestion that the SIR endorsement nullifies the fact that Roadsafe is the named 

insured and Walsh is an additional insured under the CGL policy. To the contrary, the SIR endorsement 

expressly recognizes “you or any insured,” that is, both the named insured and any additional insureds. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. 3 at 71.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 14 of 17

defense costs” for each “occurrence”[] until [the named insured] 

ha[s] paid damages equal to the Per Occurrence Amount . . . .

Id. at 68. In other words, the SIR endorsement shifts the initial cost burden 

from Zurich to Roadsafe, the named insured, not just for Roadsafe’s damages 

and defense costs but also for any additional insured’s damages and defense 

costs. As such, the SIR endorsement amends Zurich’s obligation under the 

CGL policy to defend Walsh by placing the first $500,000 of that burden on 

Roadsafe.

[13] This plain reading of the SIR endorsement is supported by its other provisions. 

In particular, in other places the SIR endorsement relies on the relationship 

between Zurich and Roadsafe exclusively and without concern for additional 

insureds, which is consistent with the SIR endorsement having placed the 

burden to defend additional insureds on Roadsafe. For example, the SIR 

endorsement states that: “you [Roadsafe] shall pay ‘pro rata defense costs’ as 

they are incurred . . . ”; “you [Roadsafe] shall have the right and obligation to 

settle” claims within the SIR amount, but “[y]ou [Roadsafe] may not settle any 

claim or suit which exceeds” the SIR amount; and “[w]e [Zurich] shall be liable 

only for the amounts of our share of ‘pro rata defense costs’ and damages in 

excess of” the SIR amount. Id. at 69-70.

[14] Further, the SIR endorsement unambiguously conditions Roadsafe’s 

compliance with its provisions as a “condition precedent to coverage” from 

Zurich. Id. at 70. And there is no rational basis to apply the SIR endorsement

as a condition precedent to Zurich’s coverage of the named insured but not to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 15 of 17

Zurich’s coverage of additional insureds. Moreover, the SIR endorsement 

prioritizes its obligations and definitions over any other provision of or 

endorsement to the CGL policy, stating that, “in the event of conflict with any 

other provisions elsewhere in this policy,” the SIR endorsement “shall control 

the application of the insurance to which this endorsement applies.” Id. at 68. 

And the SIR endorsement enabled Roadsafe to obtain the CGL policy from 

Zurich at a reduced premium. Taken together, those provisions unambiguously

manifest the intent of the parties to the contracts, Zurich and Roadsafe, for the 

SIR endorsement to control their relationship such that Roadsafe assumed all 

costs and liability for the first $500,000 of any claim that might be made under 

the CGL policy, regardless of whether that claim was against Roadsafe or an 

additional insured.

[15] Nonetheless, Walsh asserts that the following language conflicts with Zurich’s 

duty to defend or, in the alternative, creates an ambiguity in the SIR 

endorsement that precludes summary judgment for Zurich and requires 

summary judgment for Walsh:

D. Settlement of Claims

* * *

2. Excess of Self Insured Retention

With respect to any claim under this insurance which 

has been tendered to us and which may exceed the “self 

insured retention” amount shown . . . we have the right 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 16 of 17

and duty to negotiate the settlement of such claim and 

may pay any or all damages and “defense costs” on 

your behalf, both within and excess of the applicable 

“self insured retention” amount. Any such payments 

made by us for damages or “defense costs” within the 

“self insured retention” amount shall be reimbursed 

promptly by you.

Id. at 71. According to Walsh, this provision “would be rendered meaningless” 

by Zurich’s reading of the SIR endorsement. Appellant’s Br. at 12.

[16] We cannot agree with Walsh that that language, which pertains to Zurich’s 

settlement obligations when a claim may exceed the SIR amount, has any 

application on these facts. Walsh has not requested declaratory relief with 

respect to Zurich’s potential obligation to negotiate a settlement. Rather, 

Walsh has sought declaratory relief only with respect to whether Zurich owes 

Walsh a duty to defend and a duty to provide indemnification. See Appellant’s 

App. Vol. 2 at 61-62. The language relied on by Walsh creates no such 

affirmative duties.

[17] We also reject Walsh’s argument that, “[i]f Zurich’s duty to provide coverage to 

Walsh . . . is conditioned upon Roadsafe satisfying its $500,000 SIR amount, 

then the [CGL p]olicy by definition cannot be primary as to Walsh.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 12. Walsh is still a primary insured under the CGL policy
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A04-1606-PL-1284 | March 28, 2017 Page 17 of 17

and has no less status than any other primary insured.

6

 If Walsh disapproves of 

its subcontractors obtaining SIR endorsements, Walsh can manage its 

contractual relationships with its subcontractors accordingly.7

[18] In sum, we hold that, under the plain language of the SIR endorsement, Zurich 

has no obligation under the CGL policy to defend or indemnify Walsh until 

Roadsafe has satisfied the $500,000 SIR amount. Accordingly, we affirm the 

trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Zurich.

[19] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.

 

6

 Walsh also asserts that, given our reading of the SIR endorsement, a genuine issue of material fact exists 

that precludes the entry of summary judgment because Zurich has not designated any evidence to 

demonstrate that Roadsafe has not satisfied the SIR amount. We do not accept this argument. There is no 

dispute on this record that Roadsafe has failed to defend or indemnify Walsh in the Maczuga case. Indeed,

that undisputed fact is the basis for Walsh’s third-party complaint against Roadsafe as well as Walsh’s 

attempt to seek relief from Zurich in these declaratory judgment proceedings, and Zurich designated both of 

those complaints in support of its motion for summary judgment in the instant case.

7

 Though not relevant in light of the plain language of the SIR endorsement, we note that Walsh’s contract 

with Roadsafe required Roadsafe to be “responsible for any . . . self-insured retention with respect to 

coverage afforded Additional Insureds.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 4 at 16.