One insurer paid more than $1.1 million to protect a shared client. Now it wants that money back from another carrier.
Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company, known as MUSIC, sued Evanston Insurance Company in Massachusetts federal court on August 6, 2026, according to the complaint. Both companies insured the same business - Mallard Square LLC, a property owner and developer. MUSIC alleges Evanston should have covered the entire bill, and it is asking Evanston to pay back $1,111,637.11.
The dispute starts with a construction accident described in the filing. According to the complaint, a pedestrian was walking on a sidewalk beside a construction site at 103 and 105 Washington Street in Somerville, Massachusetts, when, as the underlying complaint quoted by MUSIC puts it, "an improperly secured and unsafe temporary metal fence surrounding the construction site fell onto her, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain severe and permanent injuries." She and a family member sued Mallard and several contractors.
MUSIC says it defended Mallard and agreed to contribute toward a settlement - but claims it never should have paid. According to the filing, its policy carried an "Exclusion - Designated Ongoing Operations" that, MUSIC alleges, wiped out coverage for injuries "arising out of" construction work, specifically "[a]ny and all construction and/or demolition operations" and "[a]ny and all operations of contractors." Because no location was listed, MUSIC alleges the exclusion applied everywhere.
Evanston's policy, MUSIC alleges, was the one that should have responded. The complaint describes it as an Owners and Contractors Protective Liability policy naming Mallard, listing "105 Washington Street" as the location of operations and "Ted-Co, Inc." as the designated contractor. It carried a $1 million limit, paid defense costs on top of that limit, and stated its coverage "is primary insurance," according to the filing.
There is a further wrinkle MUSIC describes. After the underlying case settled, MUSIC says it learned that Mallard had already asked Evanston to cover Mallard's share of the settlement - and that, based on information and belief, Evanston agreed and reimbursed Mallard. So by MUSIC's account, Evanston covered the accident when its own insured asked, but has refused to reimburse MUSIC.
The numbers, as pleaded: MUSIC says it paid at least $586,637.11 to defend Mallard and $525,000 toward the settlement, each under a reservation of rights to seek the money back. It brings three claims - equitable contribution, subrogation and unjust enrichment - and argues that even if its own coverage applied, an "excess" clause would place it above Evanston's coverage, not beside it.
For claims professionals, the case turns on the fine print that decides who pays when policies overlap: designated-premises language, ongoing-operations exclusions, "other insurance" clauses and the primary-versus-excess order. MUSIC's core allegation is that a carrier should not reimburse its own insured while leaving a co-insurer with a bill MUSIC says it never owed.
The allegations have not been tested in court. Evanston has not filed a response to the complaint, and no court has ruled on MUSIC's claims.
