Posted On: July 12, 2007, 2:05 pm CDT

Posted By: Sam

Clm Mgr, the coverage question will not just rise on whether the co-employees' acts were intentional versus the injury, it will also hinge on whether they were insureds. The ruling that gives the injured worker the right to sue them for their actions indicates that the co-employees were not within the course and scope of their employement when they hurt the claimant. When not in the course and scope of employment for a business, the co-employees will not qualify as an insured under the CGL policy. Further, the CGL excludes claims for injuries to employees whether they are covered by WC or not. The best case scenario for the co-employees may be that the CGL carrier provides a defense under a Reservation, but expressly denies any indemnity to the injured employee if there is a finding against the co-workers.

Under the EL policy, the co-employees would not be insureds, and there would be no duty to defend them.

It will be interesting to see what happens in this case in the future.

Under the E