Two insurance giants are squaring off in federal court over who should pay for a Massachusetts slip-and-fall claim, and the outcome could ripple across the commercial insurance world.
On August 22, 2025, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America filed a lawsuit against The Hanover Insurance Company in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The dispute centers on a slip-and-fall incident that allegedly took place on January 25, 2022, at 27 Christie Way in Marlborough, Massachusetts - a property known as the Point. The plaintiff in the underlying case, Thierry Hygino, claims he was injured after slipping on snow and ice in the parking lot. He is seeking at least $113,167 in damages and has named PP Hudson Investors, LLC, PP Wheeler Investors, LLC, and Rosado and Sons, Inc. as defendants in the negligence suit, which is pending in Middlesex Superior Court.
Travelers says it is currently providing a defense for PP Hudson and PP Wheeler in that lawsuit. But here’s where the insurance tangle begins. According to the complaint, Panco Management of NJ, LLC manages the property, and Rosado and Sons, Inc. was contracted to handle snow removal under a services agreement dated September 21, 2021. That contract, Travelers claims, required Rosado to carry commercial general liability insurance and to provide coverage for PP Wheeler, PP Hudson, and Panco as additional insureds—on a primary, non-contributory basis.
Travelers alleges that it issued a commercial general liability policy to PP Hudson and PP Wheeler, while Hanover issued a similar policy to Rosado. The Hanover policy, according to the complaint, contains an endorsement that extends additional insured status to organizations with whom Rosado has a written contract, but only for liability caused, in whole or in part, by Rosado’s acts or omissions. The endorsement also states that coverage applies on a primary basis if the contract requires it.
Travelers says it has repeatedly tendered the defense and indemnity of PP Hudson and PP Wheeler to Hanover, starting with a letter dated June 9, 2022, and continuing through February 18, 2025. Hanover, for its part, has denied each tender, disputing the loss location and whether Rosado was negligent. Travelers claims it provided documentation to show that the property location matches the contract and that the claims against PP Hudson and PP Wheeler arise from Rosado’s snow removal work.
Now, Travelers is asking the court to declare that Hanover is obligated to defend and indemnify PP Hudson and PP Wheeler as additional insureds, that Hanover’s coverage is primary, and that Travelers’ own coverage is excess. Travelers also seeks reimbursement for all sums it has paid and continues to pay in defending PP Hudson and PP Wheeler, as well as costs and attorney’s fees.
This case, still at the complaint stage as of August 22, 2025, offers a window into the challenges insurers face when multiple policies and contractual obligations collide. For insurance professionals, it’s a timely reminder of the importance of clear contract language and the potential for disputes when coverage responsibilities overlap. The industry will be watching as the case moves forward, with the outcome likely to inform how similar coverage questions are handled in the future.
