Thus, if a subcontractor agrees to provide specified insurance and fails to do so, the general contractor is entitled to indemnification in the amount equal to the insurance required under the contract. See id., subd. 2; see also Seward Housing Corp. v. Conroy Bros. Co., 573 N.W.2d 364, 367 (Minn. 1998). The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted sections 337.02 and 337.05 to uphold a construction contract that required the subcontractor to provide insurance coverage for all damages and injuries, including claims for which the contractor may be or may be claimed to be liable.
Hannover claims that it is required to insure SCI only while Superior Fire's work was in progress but not after it was completed. It rests its argument on Seward Housing, in which the supreme court held that the insurer of a subcontractor was required to include the contractor as an additional insured only while the subcontractor's work was in progress. Seward Housing Corp. v. Conroy Bros. Co., 573 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. 1998). But Seward is not on point.
Id. (quoting Holmes, 488 N.W.2d at 474 (quoting paragraph 7 of the standard subcontract agreement)). In Seward Hous. Corp. v. Conway Bros. Co., 573 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. 1998), the only issue before the court was whether the subcontractor was required to procure "completed operations coverage" as part of its obligation to procure "general liability insurance coverage." Id. at 367.