Security & Law Enforcement Employees v. Hartnett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a COI that stated that it conferred no rights upon the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff was insured
• noting that “the doctrine of estoppel may not be invoked to create coverage where none exists under the policy”
• noting that whether the plaintiff was an additional insured was a distinct issue from whether the subcontractor was required to defend and indemnify the plaintiff
• explaining “the certificate of insurance recited that it was ‘a matter of information only and confer[red] no rights upon’ the plaintiff,” and so was “insufficient, by itself, to establish that the plaintiff was insured” (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).