Opinion ID: 59472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Legally Sufficient Evidentiary Basis

Text: Marsh is correct in observing that it is liable only if the insurance policy would have covered the loss incurred. Keddie, 580 P.2d at 956. Marsh argues that SMI failed to establish the causation element because the St. Paul policy it procured for Fluor would have contained an insured-versus-insured exclusion that would have precluded PL coverage for subcontractors who were listed as additional named insureds under the St. Paul policy. Thus, SMI suffered no damages for not being named as an additional named insured on Fluor's PL policy because that policy would never have covered SMI's damages resulting from Fluor's claims against SMI in the Arbitration Proceeding. According to Marsh, there was no evidence that St. Paul or Fluor would have been willing to delete the exclusion if any subcontractors were added to the PL policy. [4] At trial, SMI produced more than a scintilla of evidence indicating that (1) Marsh and Fluor initially intended to obtain PL coverage for subcontractors of all tiers; [5] (2) Marsh submitted a binder proposal to St. Paul requesting PL coverage for enrolled subcontractors; [6] (3) the scope of coverage under the PL policy issued by St. Paul was negotiable; [7] (4) a Marsh representative made a verbal assurance to SMI that there was no need for professional liability insurance; [8] (5) the actual policy issued by St. Paul deleted the insured-versus-insured exclusion through endorsement; [9] and (6) the Insurance Information Booklet, the Contractor Handbook, and the two Certificates of Insurance issued by Marsh all stated that SMI had PL coverage under the CIP. Because our review of the causation issue is especially deferential, we conclude that there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that SMI has proven the causation element of its negligence claim. [10]