Quality and clarity is often lacking in additional-insured coverage requirements and indemnity provisions in subcontracts. If those provisions are not properly prepared, then the upstream party may have significantly more risk and less protection than it intends and expects.  A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals held that a contractor was not covered as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy because certain exclusions in the subcontractor’s policy barred coverage for the upstream contractor.  The contractor might have avoided this adverse ruling if the subcontract contained (and the contractor enforced) certain insurance requirements and if the indemnity provision in the subcontract properly coordinated with the required additional-insured coverage.  In this seminar, a panel of experienced construction attorneys will discuss drafting and managing insurance requirements and indemnity provisions in subcontracts and will apply those principles to suggest how to avoid the sort of adverse result dictated by the recent decision of the Court of Appeals.