Liberty Mutual has asked a federal court to make two rival carriers pay to defend a contractor it says was never its responsibility alone. 

The dispute starts with an alleged accident on April 25, 2023, on Bruckner Boulevard in the Bronx. According to the complaint, filed August 10, 2026, a passenger was hurt when the vehicle they were riding in struck an improperly parked 2017 Western Star truck. The truck belonged to a subcontractor, JP Hogan Coring & Sawing Corporation, and the filing says it counts as a "covered auto" under Hogan's commercial auto policy. 

The injured person sued in Bronx County, naming a contractor known as El Sol and one of its employees. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company is defending both in that case. It now wants two other insurers to take over. 

The logic runs through the paperwork. The complaint says El Sol hired Hogan for concrete and grinding work, and the contract required Hogan to add El Sol as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory basis. Hogan's auto coverage came from Crum & Forster Indemnity Company, which the filing says carries stated limits of $1 million per accident. Above it sat an excess policy from Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, which the complaint says carries stated limits of $5 million per occurrence. 

The contract spelled out the requirement, according to the complaint: "Comprehensive Automobile Liability" coverage "of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence," reachable through a mix of primary and excess policies, with additional-insured coverage that is "primary" and any other coverage that "shall be non-contributing." 

Liberty Mutual alleges that wording, together with a blanket additional-insured endorsement in the Crum & Forster policy, puts Crum & Forster first in line. That endorsement, the filing says, extends coverage to "Any person, organization or governmental entity" the policyholder must add under a written contract. 

The tenders went nowhere, according to the complaint. Liberty Mutual says it tendered the contractor's defense to Crum & Forster on August 2, 2024, and again on January 30, 2026. By a letter dated March 12, 2026, the complaint alleges, Crum & Forster "belatedly responded to the tenders wrongfully denying any duty to defend and/or indemnify." A separate tender to Starr on February 13, 2026, drew no answer, the filing says, alleging Starr "has failed and/or refused to respond or acknowledge its obligations." 

For claims teams, the filing reads as a clean map of how additional-insured coverage is meant to work: a written-contract endorsement, a primary-and-non-contributory demand, and an excess layer stacked on top. Liberty Mutual says its own policy is excess to any coverage on which the contractor is named an additional insured, so it should pay only after the other two layers are used up. 

The complaint asks the court to declare that Crum & Forster owes a primary defense and indemnity, that Starr owes coverage once the Crum & Forster policy exhausts, and that Crum & Forster must repay the defense costs Liberty Mutual says it has already spent, with interest. 

The allegations have not been tested, and no court has ruled on the claims.