One insurer says a rival skipped out on a defense bill - and now wants a federal judge to decide who pays.
Ohio Security Insurance Company sued Old Republic Insurance Company on June 16, 2026, in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, claiming Old Republic should be covering the cost of defending a property owner in an injury suit - and that Ohio Security got the tab.
The dispute starts with a workplace injury. According to the complaint, a worker, Vinci Jean-Baptiste, sued the building's owner, Skillman Austell, LLC, in Queens in June 2022, saying he was hurt on February 16, 2021, while prepping items for transport at a Long Island City site. Skillman Austell then brought in the worker's employer, Possible Productions Inc.
The insurance wiring is what counts. Possible Productions leased storage space from Skillman Austell, and the complaint says the lease required the tenant to carry general liability coverage naming "Skillman Austell LLC" as the additional insured. That clause drives the whole fight.
Possible Productions is covered under an Old Republic policy issued to ViacomCBS Inc. as first named insured, with - per the filing - a $10 million each-occurrence limit and a $30 million aggregate. The complaint says Possible Productions is a named insured on it.
Ohio Security argues that Old Republic's endorsements also make Skillman Austell an additional insured as a lessor of leased premises. One covers "Any Manager or Lessor of premises leased to you whom you have agreed to include as an additional insured under a written contract, provided such contract was executed prior to the date of loss."
It also points to a primary and non-contributory endorsement, which it quotes as saying Old Republic's coverage "will apply to such loss on a primary basis and will not seek contribution from the other insurance available to the Additional Insured."
Ohio Security's own policy cuts the other way - it says its coverage is excess over other primary insurance for which the insured "have been added as an additional insured." Both policies, in short, are built to make the other go first.
Ohio Security says it tried repeatedly to hand off the defense, tendering by letter on February 1, 2025, and following up by email that day, on December 3, 2025, and on March 27, 2026. It says it never got a response, and that Old Republic "has never provided a coverage position letter regarding its coverage position for Skillman Austell."
The complaint also alleges, on information and belief, that Old Republic is already defending and paying for Possible Productions in the underlying case while declining to cover Skillman Austell. Ohio Security says it was "forced to drop down" and defend Skillman Austell itself.
It wants a declaratory judgment that Old Republic must defend and indemnify Skillman Austell first, plus reimbursement for what it has spent.
For claims professionals, it is a clean illustration of how these priority-of-coverage fights live or die on endorsement and lease wording - and how going quiet on a tender can end up in court.
These are allegations. Old Republic has not yet responded, and no court has ruled.
