Insurers put an end to ‘cat fights’.

Two insurers have settled their dispute over coverage for an employee of the touring company for the musical “Cats” who was seriously injured on the set of a Providence theater in 2019.

The Providence Performing Arts Center (PPAC) employee was injured when items loaded onto a forklift he was using shifted and fell on top of him. The employee claims that, as a result of this incident, he suffered permanent injuries, scarring and disfigurement to his body, nerves and nervous system, as well as pain and suffering, and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, medical treatment and surgery in the future and, among other things, suffer a loss of income.

The injured worker received Rhode Island workers’ compensation benefits through his employer PPAC. He did not sue his employer, PPAC, but did sue the tour company, Cats on Tour, for negligence resulting in the injuries.

The dispute between the insurers focused on the travel company’s defense to the employee’s negligence suit, specifically whether a policy should provide primary coverage.

In June 2022, Hartford Accident and Indemnity sued for a declaratory judgment that a commercial general liability policy of Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co. issued to PPAC was primary and that Massachusetts Bay had an obligation to defend and indemnify the Cats in the suit. Hartford also sought reimbursement for defense costs already incurred due to Massachusetts Bay’s refusal to provide coverage.

On September 12, 2024, the insurers notified Judge Margaret Guzman of the US District Court for Massachusetts that they had reached a settlement. The judge dismissed the case the next day. Terms were not disclosed.

When Massachusetts Bay, a subsidiary of Hanover, insured PPAC under a commercial general liability policy, it included the travel company as a named insured. Hartford issued a supplemental liability policy to PPAC.

Massachusetts Bay argued that PPAC’s workers’ compensation coverage, and not its liability policy, was primary in the case. It also argued that its policy excludes personal injury claims where Cats is said to be at fault. The employee sued Cats, not his PPAC insured, the insurer noted.

Hartford argued that Massachusetts Bay’s policy was paramount and therefore Massachusetts Bay should defend and indemnify the cats. Hartford said that under a booking agreement with the Cats, PPAC was responsible for the forklift accident. Hartford said the Massachusetts Bay policy includes an endorsement that extends additional insured coverage to liability for bodily injury caused in whole or in part by acts or omissions of those acting on behalf of PPAC, which it said includes cats.

Hartford argued that any coverage that might be available to cats under the Hartford policy was in excess of the additional insured coverage provided to cats under the Massachusetts Bay policy.

However, Hartford said that, given that Massachusetts Bay had “repeatedly” and “wrongfully” denied coverage of the lawsuit, it stepped in to defend the cats. Hartford said Massachusetts Bay failed to reimburse it for costs and amounts incurred.

TOPICS
Carriers