Now more than any other time in history we are seeing more manufacturers refusing to name their clients as Additional Insured on their product liability insurance policies or going the other extreme and asking their clients to name them as Additional Insured on their product liability insurance policy. 

Why this is extraordinary is because in the past, manufacturers have used additional insured vendors endorsements as a way to entice retailers and wholesalers to sell their products.  By being additional insured on the manufacturer’s product liability policy, the retailers and wholesalers were reassured that they were protected in the event they were shotgunned into a products liability lawsuit for a manufacturing defect of the product.

This reversal by the manufacturers is due, in my opinion, to two different factors. The first reason may be because more manufacturers are using high self-insured retentions and loss-sensitive rating plans to save money on product liability insurance premiums. When using these methods to reduce their premium costs, manufacturers are likely to be required to come out of pocket for a large portion of the defense costs.  By eliminating clients as Additional Insureds, the defense costs would have to be covered by their client’s product liability insurance policy, thus, saving them a significant amount of money.

The second reason manufacturers may be reluctant to name their clients as Additional Insured is the manufacturers are not always the designer of the products they are manufacturing.  There are 3 legal theories of recovery in a product liability lawsuit – 1) Manufacturer Defect, 2) Design Defect and 3) Instruction and Warning Defect.  When a manufacturer names a client as Additional Insured on their product liability policy, the manufacturer’s policy is primary to their clients product liability policies and the manufacturer’s policy would have to respond to all product liability lawsuits, even if the reason for the lawsuits were for Design or Instruction and Warning defect.  When manufacturers are contracted to build products designed by others, they are not responsible for the design or instructions and warnings of the products and, therefore; do not feel it is their responsibility to cover these types of claims on a primary basis.  This type of manufacturer is often called a third party manufacturer because they are simply building products based on the specifications provided to them by other parties.

Since these third party manufacturers are not responsible for the design or the warning labels or instructions, we are seeing many of these third party manufacturers asking their clients and vendors to name them as Additional Insured on their policy.  The logic the third party manufacturers use to justify this request is that since they are making products to the specifications of their clients and not responsible for warning labels or instructions, they should be covered on the clients Product Liability policy. This is a very convincing argument and not without merit.

What is odd about this dilemma is there is not overt Indemnification agreement or contract that simply declares that the third party manufacturer is responsible for manufacturing defect and the designer of the product, which is more often than not, also, the seller, be responsible for design and instructions and warning defect claims.

If anybody is aware of such an indemnification agreement, please email or fax me a copy.  We would love to be able to recommend this to our clients as a simple way of resolving this troubling issue.