One insurer is defending a Bronx construction injury suit on its own - and now it wants three rivals to share the bill.
Upland Specialty Insurance Company went to Manhattan federal court on June 28, 2026, asking a judge to declare that Ohio Security, Ohio Casualty and Blue Ridge Indemnity owe primary coverage to a housing developer and its general contractor, and must repay what Upland has already spent on their defense.
The dispute traces back to a personal injury case in the Supreme Court, Bronx County. According to the complaint, a worker says she was hurt on September 26, 2023, while clearing construction debris between the 17th and 18th floors of a building at 212 West 124th Street in Manhattan, when she slipped and fell down a staircase. The filing says she alleges injuries to her cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, right knee, right wrist and brain, and claims past and future lost earnings of "approximately $1,000,000."
The reason insurers should pay attention sits in the paperwork. Upland covers the developer, HP Marcus Garvey Housing Development Fund Company, and the general contractor, Ardsley Construction Services, and has been funding their defense. But the project's subcontracts required subcontractors to name both as additional insureds on a primary, non-contributory basis. Upland's position is that this puts the subcontractors' carriers first in line.
The complaint quotes the contract terms. The insurance schedule called for coverage to be "PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY," with the developer's and contractor's insurance sitting "excess to Subcontractor's insurance." Upland's excess policy says the same thing in reverse - it "is excess over, and shall not contribute with any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis."
Two carriers have already refused. According to the complaint, Ohio Security denied the tender on April 15, 2024, saying the accident was not caused, in whole or in part, by its insured. Blue Ridge's counsel denied its tender on March 16, 2026, on the same reasoning.
The coverage question turns on who caused the fall. These additional-insured endorsements typically respond only when the named subcontractor's work is to blame. The complaint alleges the injuries were caused at least partly by the subcontractors or those acting for them, and notes the underlying court entered a default judgment on liability on February 25, 2025, against two entities Upland says worked on one subcontractor's behalf. It also says the "sharp projection protruding from or near the floor" the worker described was rebar installed by another subcontractor.
For claims teams, it is a tidy example of how additional-insured denials end up in court when a primary carrier believes it is paying for a loss that, in its view, belongs in someone else's tower.
None of the allegations have been tested in court, and no court has ruled.
