Two well-known insurance companies are facing off in a federal court over a dispute about who should pay first in a construction injury case. Travelers Indemnity Company filed a lawsuit against Erie Insurance Company on January 29, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The case centers on an injury that happened at a construction site in Buffalo and disagreements over which insurer should take responsibility for the defense.
The incident involved a worker named Thomas G. Sellitto who was hurt around April 1, 2021, at a housing development project called The Crossroads at Genesee in Buffalo. Sellitto reportedly injured his lower back while moving a bin of reclaimed hardwood. The project was owned by The Crossroads at Genesee Housing Development Fund Co. Inc., with The Pike Company, Inc. serving as the contractor. Pike hired Fairway Floor Covering Inc. as a subcontractor to handle flooring work, which included removing the old hardwood floor and installing a new one.
Fairway was required by its contract with Pike to have general liability insurance naming both Pike and The Crossroads as additional insured parties. Erie Insurance provided this policy to Fairway, including an endorsement that covered bodily injuries stemming from Fairway’s work for the other insured parties. The policy stated its coverage was primary and non-contributory, meaning it should pay first before any other insurance related to the additional insureds.
Travelers, the insurer for Pike, asked Erie to take over the defense of Pike and The Crossroads in February 2024. Erie initially acknowledged the request but denied coverage two months later, arguing there was not enough proof that the injury was caused by Fairway’s actions. Since then, Travelers has been covering the defense costs but is now seeking a court ruling that Erie’s policy was supposed to respond first. Travelers also wants reimbursement for the legal expenses it has already covered and continues to pay.
So far, the court has not made any decisions on the case. The matter remains in its early stages, and the court has yet to address the key questions about which insurer should respond. For those in the insurance industry, this case highlights ongoing issues around additional insured endorsements and the meaning of “primary and non-contributory” coverage, especially in situations where a subcontractor’s work results in injury.