Opinion ID: 2518484
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: OTS And The City Are Subject To The CGL Automobile Exclusion.

Text: As an initial matter, both OTS and the City are subject to the CGL policy's restrictions, including the CGL automobile exclusion. Both Aloha State and OTS were listed as insured parties, and the exclusion applied to any automobile owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured (emphasis added). OTS is a named insured, such that the exclusion applies to OTS even if OTS itself did not own or operate the automobile. [6] Similarly, the City is subject to the CGL automobile exclusion as well. In its contract with the City, Aloha State agreed to indemnify the City against any claims brought against the City arising from Aloha State's negligence. The CGL policy insured Aloha State against this type of contractual liability, but only to the extent that Aloha State becomes legally obligated to pay ... damages because of `bodily injury or `property damage' to which this insurance applies.  In other words, if Aloha State was entitled to coverage for a particular occurrence of bodily injury or property damage, Aloha State would be entitled to coverage for its contractual obligation to indemnify a third party for liability arising from that occurrence as well. If the CGL policy did not apply to Aloha State ( i.e., if one of the exclusions in the CGL policy barred coverage for Aloha State), then the indemnitee (the City) would not be entitled to coverage either. Additionally, the CGL policy specifically excluded coverage for any damages arising from the sole negligence of the indemnitee. Consequently, if we conclude that the automobile exclusion applies to Aloha State, the exclusion also bars the City from recovering from Northfield. In sum, if the CGL automobile exclusion in the instant case applies at all, it applies equally to Aloha State, OTS, and the City.