The applicant leased a scissor lift to a construction company, which agreed to name the applicant as an additional insured on its commercial general liability policy but failed to do so.
After an inspector was injured using the lift, the applicant sought a declaration that it was an 'Unnamed Insured' under the respondent insurer's policy and entitled to a defence and indemnity.
The court found that while the applicant met the definition of an 'Unnamed Insured', the policy contained an unambiguous restriction limiting coverage to liability arising out of operations performed in connection with a contract performed for the applicant.
Since the inspection was performed for the property owner and not the applicant, the application for coverage was dismissed.
