An insurer is dragging a rival into federal court, saying it wrongly refused to help defend a project owner sued over a worker's injury.
It began on a Manhattan job site. According to the complaint, a construction worker alleges he was hurt on May 19, 2020, at a project at 145 West 108th Street. He says he was gathering trash and debris when a mini-container being hoisted by Century Waste broke loose, fell and struck him in the back. He is suing the project owner and Century Waste in a separate state case and is not a party to this federal lawsuit.
Berkley is defending the project owner, as an additional insured, under a Berkley general liability policy issued to contractors on the project. Now Berkley wants Trisura to take over that defense.
The reason: the complaint alleges that Century Waste signed a purchase order dated January 7, 2019, to handle waste at the site, and that the purchase order's Exhibit "A" required Century Waste to carry commercial general liability coverage and to name the owner as an additional insured. Trisura had issued Century Waste a policy running August 16, 2019 to August 16, 2020, with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate.
That policy, the filing states, includes an endorsement titled "ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS - SCHEDULED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION," with a schedule reading "Per Written Contract." Coverage applies, the endorsement says, "but only with respect to liability arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that insured."
So it comes down to two words: "written contract." When the owner tendered the claim in 2022, Trisura's counsel denied it, the complaint says, because its investigation showed "no written contract existed between Procida and Century for the work." Berkley's response points to the purchase order.
What follows, in Berkley's telling, is a run of silence. The owner asked Trisura to reconsider in April 2023 and, the complaint alleges, got no meaningful reply. A second request went out in September 2025. In October 2025, Berkley says, Trisura's counsel acknowledged it and promised to "review and revert" - then, according to the filing, did not.
For claims professionals, the case turns on a recurring question: whether a purchase order and its insurance exhibit satisfy an endorsement that extends additional-insured status only "per written contract." Berkley's declaratory-judgment count asks the court to rule that the owner qualifies as an additional insured, that Trisura owes a defense and indemnity on a primary and non-contributory basis, and that Trisura must repay Berkley's defense costs. A breach-of-contract count mirrors that claim. Berkley also sues Century Waste, alleging it breached the purchase order by "failing to procure" the required coverage at the outset.
The allegations in Berkley's complaint have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled on any claim.
