Pitlock & Associates own an indoor shopping mall. Kims Hot & Creamy Donuts leases space in the mall to operate their donut shop. Kims serves coffee in addition to donuts. A Kims customer is walking thru the common area with a cup of coffee she had just purchased when she trips on a broken floor tile and spills the coffee on Wilma Melton, another shopper at the mall. Wilma suffers third degree burns to her arm as a result of the hot coffee spill. Wilma sues Pitlock & Associates under a premises liability theory for her injury. (answer in terms of the cgl policy)

1. Assume Pitlock & Associates is an additional insured under a CGL policy issued by Kims CGL insurer, Iowa Casualty. Assume the CGL policy states that Pitlock & Associates is an insured for its liability arising from Kims use of the leased premises. Is Iowa Casualty obligated to defend Pitlock & Associates under these circumstances? Why or why not?

2. Assume there is no additional insured endorsement on the policy. However, there is an enforceable intermediate indemnity agreement in the lease that runs in favor of Pitlock & Associates. (Remember: an intermediate indemnity agreement means there must be a finding that the indemnitor, in this case Kims, is at least 1% at fault for the accident in order to trigger the indemnity obligation). Pitlock demands a defense from Iowa Casualty per the indemnity agreement. Under the circumstances of this claim, should Iowa Casualty agree to defend Pitlocks and indemnify it for any judgement that might be awarded to Wilma? Why or why not?

3. Assume Claudia Osteen had just exited her car in the parking lot, and was on her way to buy coffee and donuts from Kims when she tripped in a pot hole in the parking lot and fell. Claudia sues Pitlock & Associates under a premises liability theory. Her lawsuit alleges Pitlock & Associates was at fault because it failed to keep the parking lot in good repair. The lawsuit does not allege she was going to buy coffee and donuts from Kims. However, Pitlock & Associates obtained a statement from Claudia in which she tells the investigator that was her plan. Pitlock & Associates provides this statement to Kims when it demands a defense from Iowa Casualty. Is Iowa Casualty obligated to defend Pitlock & Associates? Why or why not?