Trent Cotney, Partner, Adams & Reese, LLP and FRSA General Counsel - February 2026
Additional insured status is one of the most misunderstood and, at the same time, most heavily negotiated provisions in construction contracts. Roofing contractors routinely agree to name owners, general contractors and sometimes even developers, architects or property managers as additional insureds, often without fully appreciating what that obligation means or how it affects risk, coverage and claims down the road. When handled properly, additional insured status can be a manageable business requirement. When handled poorly, it can expose a contractor to uninsured risk and expensive disputes with both insurers and project partners.
At its core, additional insured status allows a party other than the named insured to receive coverage under a contractor’s liability policy for certain claims. In roofing contracts, owners and general contractors typically require this protection to guard against claims arising out of the roofer’s work. The problem is that many contractors assume that simply issuing a
certificate of insurance satisfies the obligation. It does not.
One of the most common mistakes roofing contractors make is relying on certificates of insurance rather than the actual policy language and endorsements.
Certificates are informational only and do not create coverage. If the policy does not include the correct additional insured endorsement or if the endorsement does not match the contractual requirement, the coverage may not exist when a claim arises. Contractors should always confirm that the endorsement itself has been issued and that it applies to the specific project.
Equally important is understanding that not all additional insured endorsements are the same. Older endorsements often provided coverage for liability “arising out of” the contractor’s work. Many newer endorsements are far more restrictive, limiting coverage to liability “caused, in whole or in part” by the contractor’s acts or omissions. That change in wording can significantly narrow coverage, particularly in situations where multiple trades are involved or where fault is disputed.
Another critical issue is the timing of coverage. Some endorsements only provide additional insured status for ongoing operations, while others extend to completed operations. Roofing claims frequently arise after the work is finished. If the contract requires completed operations coverage and the policy only provides coverage during ongoing operations, the contractor may be in breach of contract.
Priority of coverage is also frequently overlooked. Many contracts require the roofing contractor’s insurance to be primary and non-contributory. “Primary and non-contributory” means the roofing contractor’s insurance must respond first to a claim and cannot seek contribution from the owner’s or general contractor’s insurance. Not all policies automatically provide this and some require a specific endorsement.
Roofing contractors should also pay close attention to the scope of who must be named as an additional insured. Contracts sometimes include overly broad language requiring coverage for parties with no direct contractual relationship. Contractors should negotiate to limit this obligation.
Indemnity provisions and additional insured obligations are related but distinct. Being named as an additional insured does not eliminate the need for a properly drafted indemnity clause, nor does indemnity language guarantee insurance coverage.
There is also a growing trend of owners and general contractors demanding additional insured coverage that exceeds what standard policies provide, including coverage for sole negligence. Such requirements may be uninsurable or prohibited by law.
It is also common to see contracts require “equivalent” ISO forms. Contractors should understand that insurer-specific endorsements labeled as equivalents may not provide the same scope of coverage as the ISO forms they replace. Reviewing the actual endorsement language is essential to ensure it meets contractual obligations.
From a practical standpoint, roofing contractors should implement a standard review process for additional insured requirements, including contract review, coordination with insurance brokers and retention of endorsements.
Additional insured status is not merely an administrative requirement. It is a substantive risk-transfer tool that requires careful attention. Roofing contractors who treat it seriously are better positioned to manage risk and avoid costly disputes.
The information contained in this article is for general educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation.
Trent Cotney is a Partner and Construction Team Leader at the law firm of Adams & Reese, LLP and FRSA General Counsel. You can reach him at 866-303-5868 or email trent.cotney@arlaw.com.