A carrier is asking a court to free it from a $13 million injury claim against its own agency client - all over one exclusion.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment complaint on July 22, 2026, in federal court in Nebraska, asking a judge to rule that it owes no coverage to Ellerbrock-Norris Agency, Inc. The Nebraska agency sells insurance and also describes itself as a "holistic risk management" agency, and that second line of business is what the dispute is about.
According to the complaint, the agency runs a paid program called the "ENCORE Safety Network" that offers workplace-safety consulting to construction contractors. In August 2024, a general contractor, Scribner Enterprises, Inc., signed up for the "Bronze Tier" package, described in the filing as a quarterly-fee membership.
The complaint says the contractor was later hired for roof work at a building on "F" Street in Omaha, a job that involved removing roof panels. The contractor brought on a roofing subcontractor, which hired the worker at the center of the case. Before the work began, the filing says, an agency representative visited the site, discussed how roofers could tie off at height, and ran fall-protection "toolbox talks" in Spanish and English.
On November 19, 2024, the day the project officially began, the complaint says the worker stepped into an unprotected opening left by a removed roof panel and fell about 18 feet, landing on a vehicle inside the building. The filing says he "allegedly suffered catastrophic injuries, including severe traumatic brain injury."
The complaint states that in February 2026, the worker's attorneys demanded $13,000,000.00 from the agency, claiming it was "contractually obligated to perform safety services that included supervision and maintenance of crew, job site safety of the subcontractors and OSHA compliance." A lawsuit followed in Douglas County District Court in June 2026.
The agency turned the claim over to Cincinnati. According to the filing, the carrier investigated, issued a reservation-of-rights letter, and then went to federal court to argue that it owes nothing.
The dispute turns on one clause. Cincinnati relies on an endorsement it calls the "Insurance and Related Operations" exclusion, which it says removes coverage for bodily injury "for which the insured may be held liable" that results from "the rendering of or failure to render" certain professional services. As quoted in the policy, those services include "advising, inspecting, reporting or making recommendations in the insured's capacity as an insurance company, consultant, broker, agent or representative thereof," and "performing any claim, investigative, adjustment, engineering, inspection, consulting, survey, audit, appraisal, actuarial or data processing service for a fee."
Cincinnati alleges the agency's safety audit, training, and recommendations fall inside that carve-out. The complaint says the agency "specifically advised, inspected and/or made recommendations" to the contractor as a safety and risk-management consultant, and "performed its investigative, inspection and consulting services to Scribner for a fee." It also alleges the exclusion applies "whether or not ENA's advice was negligent."
The complaint addresses a disclaimer in the agency's own engagement paperwork, which stated the program was offered "with the understanding that neither the program author nor [ENA] are engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service." Cincinnati argues the exclusion applies "despite the disclaimer."
The policy at issue is a commercial general liability form, and the coverage question is whether the professional-services exclusion applies to the safety-consulting work described in the filing.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled on whether the exclusion applies or whether coverage is owed. Cincinnati is seeking a declaration in its favor, not a decision that has been made.
