Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The Developer converted a vacant building into a residential condominium by gutting and refitting it. The Developer purchased Commercial Lines Policies covering bodily injury and property damage from Nautilus, covering periods from June 1998 through June 2000. The policies define occurrence as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but do not define accident. The policies exclude damage to “that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations;” eliminate coverage for damage to “that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it;” and contain an endorsement entitled “Exclusion—Products-Completed Operations Hazard.’ Construction was completed in 2000; the Developer transferred control to a board of owners. By May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage. In 2005, the Board hired a consulting firm, which found that the exterior brick walls were not fully waterproofed and concluded that the deterioration had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but that the present water penetration was the result of inadequate restoration of the walls. The Board sued the Developer. Nautilus denied coverage and obtained a declaratory judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reviewing the policy and finding that the shoddy workmanship, of which the board complained, was not covered by the policies; that Nautilus did not unduly delay pursuing its declaratory suit; and that the alleged damage to residents’ personal property occurred after the portions of the building were excluded from coverage.View "Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Dirs. of Regal Lofts Condo Ass'n" on Justia Law

In Spring 2008, Williams Company Construction, Inc. entered into a construction contract to remodel the Friendly Smiles Cosmetic Dentistry Office owned by Dr. Brenda Barfield. Dr. Barfield previously leased the building from Williams Company owner Glen Williams for approximately five years before she purchased the property from him in 2008. Dr. Barfield hired Williams to remodel the building because of its construction experience and familiarity and knowledge of the building. When Dr. Barfield hired Williams, she did not know whether the remodeling work would be done by Williams or subcontractors. Dr. Barfield did not deal directly with any subcontractors during the remodeling project nor did she direct Williams to hire any specific subcontractors. During the remodel, Williams served as the general contractor and hired subcontractors to do various construction tasks. In December 2008, a section of a copper water pipe froze and burst. The frozen water pipe caused minor water damage and was repaired by plumbing subcontractor Home Heating. During the repair process, a Home Heating employee cut a hole in the wall to locate the leak and discovered that the air in the plumbing wall was cold. The employee was concerned the pipe could freeze again and notified the Friendly Smiles Cosmetic Dentistry Office about the cold air. Dr. Barfield contacted Williams to express her concern about the pipes re-freezing from the cold air. According to testimony, Williams told Dr. Barfield not to worry about the pipes freezing again because of circulating warm air around the hole. Dr. Barfield also wanted the hole in the wall patched, but had difficulty in securing Williams or Home Heating to fix it. Dr. Barfield made repeated requests for Williams or Home Heating to resolve the cold air issue, but they did not fix the problem. Approximately one week after the pipe was fixed, the water pipe froze and broke again, this time causing extensive water damage to the dental office. Dr. Barfield and her insurance company, Travelers Insurance, brought suit against Williams, Home Heating (and other subcontractors) for negligence, and breach of contract. Before trial, the parties stipulated that the total amount of damages was $220,046.09. Williams requested the trial court to include a jury instruction concerning the independent contractor distinction (C-55.25), and a jury instruction pertaining to the failure of a party to produce witnesses (C-80.30). The court denied the two requests. At the pretrial hearing, the parties stipulated that the case would be tried before the jury based on comparative fault. The jury was given a special verdict form and found Williams seventy percent at fault, Home Heating twenty-five percent at fault, and Dr. Barfield five percent at fault. Judgment was entered against Williams. Williams subsequently filed a motion for a new trial arguing the court erred in denying its requested jury instructions and there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find Williams seventy percent at fault for the damages. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion. Williams appealed the district court's judgment, but finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of America v. Williams Co. Construction" on Justia Law

The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) hired general contractor S.J. and Burkhardt, Inc. (SJB) for a public works construction project in 2006. Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) executed performance and payment bonds for the project. Plaintiff Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) was a subcontractor for the project, completing its work by September 2006, but it did not receive payment. In March 2008, SJB sent a voluntary default letter to Safeco. In July 2008, GSB sued SJB, EMWD, and Safeco for the unpaid amounts under the contract, separately seeking payment from Safeco under its payment bond. EMWD filed a cross-complaint to interplead retained sums. Safeco made a motion for summary judgment on the cause of action for payment under the bond on the ground that GSB’s claim was untimely. The trial court granted the motion, finding that there had been three cessations of labor that triggered GSB’s duty to file a stop notice in order to secure payment under Safeco's payment bond. At a subsequent court trial on the contract claims, GSB was awarded judgment against SJB, and Safeco was awarded judgment on the interpleader action. GSB appealed the summary judgment ruling, arguing: (1) the trial court erroneously overruled its objections to evidentiary matters presented in support of Safeco’s summary judgment; and (2) the court erred in finding the action was untimely. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Golden State v. Eastern Municipal Water Dist." on Justia Law

Continental issued claims-made liability policies to the architectural firm responsible for designing and overseeing the construction of a building for the DASNY. In this declaratory judgment action, the insurer appealed from the district court's ruling on summary judgment that the two design flaws in the same structure were not "related." The court concluded that the 2002 Demand Letter could not be fairly read to concern the Ice Control Issue; and, focuses entirely on the Steel Girt Tolerance Issue, it could not be fairly read as an omnibus claim concerning all architectural defects in the Baruch College building; the court agreed with the district court that the Steel Girt Tolerance Issue and the Ice Control Issue arose from two unrelated wrongful acts; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's declaration that the two issues were unrelated. However, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by awarding prejudgment interest from the date of the settlement agreement itself. Accordingly, the court vacated the award and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dormitory Authority v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

This case arose from a contract between Roanoke Healthcare Authority (doing business as Randolph Medical Center) and Batson-Cook Company, a general contractor, to renovate the medical center, located in Roanoke. Batson-Cook received written notice from Roanoke Healthcare that work on the renovation project had been suspended. Batson-Cook notified one of its subcontractors, Hardy, of the suspension and stated that "[t]he contract has been suspended by [Roanoke Healthcare] through no fault of Batson-Cook ... or its subcontractors. [Roanoke Healthcare] is currently out of funding and has subsequently closed the facility while seeking a buyer." Liberty Mutual, the project's insurer, alleged in its answer that Roanoke Healthcare failed to pay Batson-Cook $241,940.51 for work performed pursuant to the contract. Batson-Cook sent Hardy a change order the change order deducted from the subcontract the $147,000 in equipment and materials another subcontractor Hardy hired, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), had furnished for the renovation project and for which it has not received payment. JCI notified Liberty Mutual, Roanoke Healthcare, Batson-Cook, and Hardy by certified letters of its claim on a payment bond. The letters identified Batson-Cook as the general contractor and Hardy as the debtor. Liberty Mutual denied the claim. JCI sued Liberty Mutual, alleging JCI was entitled to payment on the payment bond Liberty Mutual had issued to Batson-Cook. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded JCI was a proper claimant on the payment bond. Therefore, the circuit court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual and denying JCI's summary judgment motion. View "Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company " on Justia Law

Northern, operated by VanDuinen, was a general contractor on public construction projects, legally required to obtain surety bonds. Hanover was Northern’s bonding agent and required Northern to enter into an Indemnity Agreement, which VanDuinen signed in his individual capacity and as Northern’s President. The Midway Airport Project was financed by the FAA and managed by Parsons. In 2008 Northern won the bid and began subcontracting. in 2009 subcontractors complained that Northern failed to pay them in accordance with the bonds and contracts. Work was halted, resulting in a separate complaint, by Parsons, for failure to complete the Project as required. The FAA opted to retain possession of remaining contract funds, $127,086.00, pending resolution of the disputes and completion of the work. Hanover received claims from subcontractors McDaniel ($127,452.78) and Rex Electric ($78,495.00) and a claim for performance from Parsons. Hanover demanded collateral under the Agreement. Northern refused to post collateral or to indemnify Hanover. In 2009 McDaniel filed for bankruptcy; the bankruptcy trustee sued Hanover seeking payment for work performed. In 2012, Hanover paid the trustee $127,452.78 to resolve both McDaniels’s and Rex Electric’s claims. Hanover resolved Parson’s claim by stepping in as general contractor and arranging for completion of the Project. Parsons paid Hanover the $127,086.00 of contract funds the FAA had withheld. Hanover sued Northern and VanDuinen. The district court granted summary judgment in Hanover’s favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Agreement is unambiguous. Northern breached it, and Hanover is entitled to contractual damages. View "Hanover Ins. Co. v. Northern Bldg. Co." on Justia Law

The general contractor of a Wisconsin construction project, hired Harsco to supply scaffolding. Krien, injured in a fall when a plank on a scaffold on which he was standing, broke, sued Harsco. The parties settled his claim for $900,000. Harsco filed a third‐party complaint against the contractor, seeking indemnification plus interest and attorneys’ fees. The district judge granted the contractor summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded after examining the complex provisions of the contract between the two. The plank may or may have been supplied by Harsco and may or may not have been defective, as claimed by Krien, who could not sue Riley in tort, because against his employer his only remedy for a work‐related accident was a claim for workers’ compensation, but there has never been judicial resolution of these questions, because Krien’s suit was settled before there was any judgment. Indemnification, however, is a form of insurance, and could apply even if the party seeking indemnification was negligent. Riley’s duty to indemnify Harsco extends to legal expenses incurred by Harsco in defending against Krien’s suit and in litigating this suit. View "Krien v. Harsco Corp." on Justia Law

VP & PK purchased an insurance policy from Lexington Insurance Company for work on a construction site. Kila Kila, one of VP & PK’s subcontractors, purchased an insurance policy from Nautilus Insurance Company. Both policies contained an “other insurance” provision and included duties to defend and indemnify. When VP & PK and Kila Kila were sued for damages resulting from the construction, Nautilus funded the defense of both Kila Kila and VP & PK. Lexington satisfied the judgment against VP & PK but did not contribute to the defense costs. Nautilus filed a complaint seeking (1) a declaration that Lexington owed VP & PK a duty to defend, which it breached; and (2) equitable contribution from Lexington for defense costs. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment for Lexington, holding that Lexington’s policy was in excess to Nautilus’s policy, and therefore, Lexington’s duty to defend was not triggered. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted certified questions from the court of appeals and held, inter alia, that (1) an “other insurance” clause purporting to release an otherwise primary insurer of the duty to defend if the insurer becomes excess as to liability is enforceable, but only as between two or more insurers seeking to allocate or recover defense costs; and (2) an otherwise primary insurer who becomes an excess insurer by operation of an “other insurance” clause has a duty to defend as soon as a claim is tendered to it and there is the mere possibility that coverage of that claim exists under its policy. View "Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

ICI Homes, Inc. (ICI) had a general liability insurance policy with General Fidelity Insurance Company. In 2007, Katherine Ferrin, the owner of a residence constructed by ICI, was injured while using stairs installed by Custom Cutting, Inc. Ferrin filed suit against ICI. ICI, in turn, sought indemnification from Custom Cutting. The parties agreed to a $1.6 million settlement of Ferrin’s claim. ICI accepted $1 million from Custom Cutting’s insurer to settle its indemnification claim, which it paid to Ferrin. ICI and General Fidelity then claimed the other was responsible for paying Ferrin the remaining $600,000. Both parties paid $300,000 to Ferrin to settle Ferrin’s claim. ICI then filed suit against General Fidelity seeking return of the $300,000 ICI paid above the $1 million indemnification payment. General Fidelity counterclaimed seeking return of the $300,000 it had paid to Ferrin. The district court entered judgment for General Fidelity. The court of appeals certified two questions to the Supreme Court for resolution. The Supreme Court answered (1) the General Fidelity policy allowed ICI to apply indemnification payments received from Custom Cutting’s insurer towards satisfaction of its $1 million self-insured retention; and (2) the transfer of rights provision in the policy did not abrogate the made whole doctrine. View "Intervest Constr. of Jax, Inc. v Gen. Fidelity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Ewing Construction Company entered into a contract with a school district to serve as general contractor on a project. The school district later filed suit against Ewing for faulty construction. Ewing tendered defense of the underlying suit to Amerisure Insurance Company, Ewing's insurer under a commercial package policy that included commercial general liability coverage. Amerisure denied coverage, and Ewing filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that Amerisure breached its duty to defend and indemnify Ewing for damages awarded in the underlying suit. The district court granted summary judgment for Amerisure, concluding that the policy’s contractual liability exclusion applied to exclude coverage because Ewing assumed liability for its own construction work pursuant to the contract such that it would be liable for damages arising out of its defective work. On appeal, the court of appeals certified questions to the Texas Supreme Court, which answered that “a general contractor that enters into a contract in which it agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, without more specific provisions enlarging this obligation, does not ‘assume liability’ for damages arising out of the contractor’s defective work so as to trigger the contractual liability exclusion.” View "Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co." on Justia Law