Search CompleteMarkets

... Croston v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co. (9th Cir. 1993) 999 F.2d. 381. ...

... in general, the certificate holder has no greater rights than the insured. If there's a contract between the insured and certificate holder, it should be the insured's legal responsibility to advise of cancellation, not the insurer's and certainly not the agent's. (Keep in mind that even the ISO additional insured endorsements don't add provisions for notice of cancellation. This is just one of the reasons that OCP and Railroad Protective Policies are sometimes used rather than AI endorsements.) Related to this issue is the ACORD wording that the issuing insurer will endeavor to' provide notice of cancellation. As stated in the ACORD form, the certificate is neither part of the policy, nor a contract with the holder, and the insurer is under no obligation to notify. However, if this wording is deleted or modified ... v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 505 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1974), the court ruled that the certificate didn't grant contractual rights since there had been no exchange of consideration as required to effect a valid, enforceable contract. One wonders, though, if at some point a certificate holder might allege that the consideration provided was the granting, for example, of a construction contract in exchange for the certificate and assurance of coverage, cancellation notice, etc. In Lezak & Levy Wholesale Meats, Inc. v. Illinois Employees Insurance Co., 460 N.E.2d 475 (Ill. Ct. App. 1984), the court refused to permit the coverages implied on the certificate to supercede those actually provided under the insurance contract based on the fact that the certificate, ...