Travelers wants its defense money back - and it is suing two rival carriers and its own additional insured to get it.
In a complaint filed July 14, 2026 in federal court in San Diego, the Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut says it spent more than $112,500 defending a construction company it never had to cover - and it wants every dollar back.
The setup is one claims teams will recognize. Travelers insured a rebar subcontractor, Integrity Rebar Placers, under a policy with a blanket additional insured endorsement. That let the project's general contractor, Skanska, borrow the coverage - but narrowly. The endorsement applied "only with respect to liability for 'bodily injury' caused by acts or omissions of Integrity or its subcontractors" doing Integrity's work, the filing says, and did not cover Skanska for "its own independent acts or omissions."
The claim behind it all came from a worker who, according to the complaint, drove into a deep, unmarked ditch on a Skanska-managed highway project and was hurt. Skanska tendered to Travelers, which agreed to defend under a reservation of rights - stepping in while keeping the right to dispute coverage and recover its costs - and insisted on choosing counsel.
Then the coverage hook fell out. Integrity moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence the injuries came from its work, which was confined to a bridge overpass "at least 100 feet from the accident location," the complaint says. Skanska did not oppose the motion and voluntarily dismissed its cross-complaint against Integrity, the filing says. For Travelers, that erased the only thing triggering additional insured coverage. It sent a withdrawal letter in September 2025, kept paying while Skanska did not withdraw its tender, and now wants that money back.
Travelers also says others should have carried this. It calls Zurich, Skanska's direct primary carrier, the party that owed the defense first, pointing to an Other Insurance clause making Travelers' coverage "excess over any other primary insurance available to Skanska as a named insured." And it accuses Starr, which insured subcontractor Select Electric, of a wrongful denial - saying that after "years of non-response," Starr rejected the tender on the view there was "no evidence" Select Electric touched the ditch, while ignoring the subcontractor's own discovery responses, an incident report, and a "$450,000 settlement" with the injured worker. Starr's policy, Travelers notes, reaches liability merely "arising out of" Select Electric's operations - a broader standard than its own.
Rounding out the fight is a defense-control dispute: Travelers wants a ruling that Skanska is not entitled to independent Cumis counsel under California Civil Code section 2860, and it invokes the policy's bar on voluntary payments "without our consent."
None of this has been tested in court, and no judge has ruled. The account above comes from Travelers' complaint and remains unproven.
