Opinion ID: 1272625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Liberty Mutual Policy

Text: As a secondary means of seeking to find coverage under the commercial liability policy issued by Liberty Mutual to NECC, Appellant argues that the Department and Mr. Smith were additional insureds under the Liberty Mutual policy based on coverage provided under that policy for an insured contract. [17] While Appellant looks to this Court's decision in Marlin as authority for its position, the parties did not pursue the appropriate procedures for obtaining a determination of the availability of coverage under the Liberty Mutual policy. In contrast, the plaintiff property-owner in Marlin, who sought to be named as an additional insured under the general contractor's insurance policies instituted a third-party complaint against the general contractor's liability insurer. 212 W.Va. at 217-18, 569 S.E.2d at 464-65. In finding that the property owner was covered under the contractor's liability policy in Marlin, this Court looked to the fact that the construction contract at issue expressly required the property owner to be an additional insured on the contractor's liability policy and the insurer had issued a certificate of insurance indicating that the property owner was added to the policy as an additional insured. Id. at 218, 569 S.E.2d at 465. In the case sub judice, Liberty Mutual was not brought in to the underlying litigation as a third-party defendant. [18] Consequently, there are no appealable rulings on the issue of whether coverage is available to the Department under the Liberty Mutual policy as an additional insured. See Marlin, 212 W.Va. at 225-26, 569 S.E.2d at 472-73.