Schindler bought an elevator company in 2021. Now it's suing two insurers over coverage for a Seattle hotel breakdown that predates the deal.
Filed June 1, 2026, in New Jersey federal court, the case lands on a familiar carrier question: who covers the buyer when the claim reaches back to the seller's watch.
According to the complaint, Eltec Systems signed an elevator maintenance contract with the Seattle Renaissance Hotel around June 2016. Schindler bought Eltec's assets on June 6, 2021, and took over the work.
The filing says an elevator at the hotel allegedly failed around December 27, 2022, causing severe damage, with more found on another elevator. The hotel's property insurer, Affiliated FM, paid the claim and then pursued Schindler and Eltec in a subrogation action – where an insurer that paid a loss tries to recover from whoever it blames. Refiled in King County, Washington, in September 2025, that suit seeks over $2.6 million in property damage and $6.9 million in business interruption losses, the complaint says.
Then the coverage fight. Great American issued Eltec four primary general liability policies from 2018 to 2022, each with a $1 million per-occurrence and $4 million aggregate limit. Schindler points to an elevator project endorsement that raises limits to $4 million with a $10 million annual aggregate, and a contractor endorsement that, it says, removes the property-damage exclusion when the damage comes from the use of elevators. Liberty sat above with excess cover at a $9 million per-occurrence and $25 million aggregate limit.
The policy language Schindler relies on is routine but pointed. It says the primary coverage obliges Great American to pay sums the insured is legally required to pay for covered property damage, and gives the insurer both the right and the duty to defend any suit seeking those damages. Liberty's excess form, the complaint says, carries its own duty-to-defend endorsement covering any claim or suit the insurance may apply to.
Schindler says it filed a claim, met every policy term, and that no exclusion applies. It claims both insurers denied coverage and that Great American refused to defend, leaving it to fund the Washington case itself. It wants a court declaration that the insurers owe defense and indemnity, plus breach-of-contract damages.
The likely flashpoint is successor liability – whether an asset buyer inherits coverage written for the seller. Schindler casts itself as Eltec's successor and argues the negligence alleged during the policy periods triggers the insurers' duties.
For claims teams, it's a tidy study in how a contractor endorsement, an insured-contract definition, and successor status collide when a loss straddles an acquisition.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The insurers have not filed a response, and no court has ruled.
