Ludden & Bates v. Morrow

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that additional insured coverage does not exist under liability policy when policy provided such coverage only if required by written contract, and no such contract existed at time of accident giving rise to action against claimants
• noting that a party is “not entitled to coverage if not named as an insured or an additional insured on the face of the policy.”
• noting that whether a party is an additional insured is simply one aspect of the ultimate question of whether that party is entitled to coverage under the policy
• “The party claiming insurance coverage bears the burden of proving entitlement ... and is not entitled to coverage if not named as ... an additional insured on the face of the policy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).