Who’s on First? You Are!

By Barry Zalma on June 2, 2026

Additional Insured is an Insured

Real Estate Manager is an Insured by Definition

Post number 5362

In AMCO Insurance Company v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., No. 6:25-cv-03303-MDH, United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division (May 26, 2026) AMCO and American Family disputed which insurer provided primary coverage for Lex Group, the property manager of an apartment building owned by C4 Partners, after a tenant was injured in a fire.

AMCO insured Lex under a commercial general liability policy. American Family insured Viking Apartments and C4 Partners under a separate commercial general liability policy. Lex was not named by name in the American Family policy, but the policy’s “Who Is An Insured” section extended insured status to any organization acting as C4 Partners’ real estate manager.

After the tenant sued in state court, American Family defended both C4 Partners and Lex but later contended that its coverage for Lex was only excess to AMCO’s policy.

AMCO brought this declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that American Family’s policy was primary and AMCO’s was excess.

LEGAL ISSUES

Under Missouri law, insurance policies are interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning and must be enforced as written when unambiguous. Courts read insurance policies as a whole and try to give effect to every provision without rendering any language redundant.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

DISCUSSION

The USDC compared the “other insurance” provisions in the two policies. The AMCO policy stated that its coverage would be excess over any other primary insurance available to Lex for liability arising out of premises or operations for which Lex had been added as an additional insured.

American Family argued Lex had not been “added as an additional insured” because Lex was not specifically named by endorsement or contract. AMCO argued that Lex qualified as an insured under American Family’s “Who Is An Insured” clause because Lex was acting as C4 Partners’ real estate manager.

The USDC rejected American Family’s narrow reading. It held that, under the plain language of the American Family policy, Lex was included as an insured by virtue of its status as real estate manager, even though not identified by proper name. Reading the policy as a whole, the court concluded this meant Lex had effectively been added as an additional insured for purposes of the AMCO excess clause.

Because American Family’s policy did not contain an excess clause that displaced primary coverage, American Family’s coverage was primary and AMCO’s was excess.

ANALYSIS

The key analytical move in the opinion was the USDC’s emphasis on functional inclusion over formal designation. Instead of requiring Lex to be separately listed by endorsement, the USDC treated the American Family policy’s real-estate-manager language as sufficient to make Lex an insured under that policy. Once that was established, the AMCO policy’s excess clause was triggered.

The decision of the USDC was a straightforward contract-interpretation approach. The court focused on what the policies actually said, not on the insurer’s preferred technical distinction between being “an insured” and being “added as an additional insured.”

CONCLUSION

The USDC granted summary judgment for AMCO. It held that American Family’s policy provides primary coverage to Lex and that AMCO’s policy is excess. American Family therefore had the primary duty to defend and indemnify Lex in the underlying state lawsuit.

American Family’s Affirmative Defenses

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment on the Defendant’s affirmative defenses arguing that they fail as a matter of law. However, as the USDC granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as discussed above, the Court declined to further analyze the Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the Defendant’s affirmative defenses in this action.

The USDC found that the American Family Policy affords primary coverage to Lex, that American Family has the primary obligation to defend and indemnify Lex in the underlying state lawsuit and that the AMCO Policy applied as excess over the American Family Policy as to Lex.

As there was no genuine issue of material fact the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff.

ZALMA OPINION

A United States District Judge actually read two insurance policies and decided what they promised and rendered a decision based on what the policies said. When a person is made an insured by the terms of a contract the issue of which – of two – policies provided primary coverage to the insured and which was second.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.