It appears that insurers marketing products to the construction industry are likely to use their own additional insured endorsement language, rather than the ISO language, and thereby limit the coverage provided to an additional insured (this according to an article by Craig F. Stanovich on the IRMI web site). Mr. Stanovich gives an example of an additional insured endorsement that provides coverage only if the acts or omissions of the named insured were negligent --- which excludes any coverage for the additional insured if the theories of liability alleged are breach of warranty or strict liability. His other examples are just as troublesome. It seems that any party desiring to limit its exposure by being named an additional insured on another party's CGL policy must require that the additional insured endorsement language be provided for review and be acceptable to the party seeking to be covered. To read Mr. Stanovich's article, click here.
Following the construction industry and related legal topics in the United States.