Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Swanson hired ISF for steel fabrication work on an Indiana construction project. ISF hired Central to perform steel erection work. ISF and Central signed a subcontract in which Central agreed to procure insurance and to “defend, indemnify and hold harmless.” Central purchased insurance from Scottsdale: a $1 million commercial general liability policy and a $2 million umbrella insurance policy. ISF also carried $1 million in commercial general liability coverage from Amerisure and $7 million in umbrella coverage from National. Colip, a Central employee, was injured at work when he fell 30 feet through a hole in a building roof. Colip settled with ISF for $2.9 million, and the insurers paid according to an agreement that provided that Scottsdale would pay $1 million out of the CGL policy and $950,000 out of the Umbrella policy, while Amerisure would pay the remaining $950,000. Initially, National had no obligation to contribute. The agreement reserved the rights of the parties to seek reimbursement or contribution from each other. Amerisure sued Scottsdale and Central; Scottsdale filed counter- and cross-claims against Amerisure and National. The district court dismissed Central from the litigation and awarded Scottsdale $50,000 from Amerisure and the remaining $900,000 from National. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Sur. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2004-2005, Costa & Son Construction performed site work for the general contractor (Braitt) on such a project in Bridgewater. After Braitt terminated the relationship Costa sued, alleging breach of contract and violations of G.L. c. 93A. Costa sought to recover damages under a payment bond obtained by Brait from Arch Insurance, G.L. c. 149, 29. Brait asserted similar counterclaims against Costa. Arch argued that Costa had relinquished any right to claim against the bond pursuant to a provision of his subcontract with Brait. The trial court granted Brait and Arch directed verdict with respect to claims under the bond. A jury returned a verdict for Costa, against Brait. The Massachusetts Supreme Court vacated the directed verdict. A subcontractor on a public construction project for which a payment bond has been obtained by the general contractor pursuant to G.L. c. 149, 29, may not by private agreement forgo its right to pursue payment under the bond. The court also vacated the portion of the amended judgment granting consequential damages to Costa; consequential damages were precluded by the contract. View "Costa v. Brait Builders Corp." on Justia Law

Budrik sued Wegman for injuries sustained in an accident on a construction site managed by Wegman and was demanding almost presented a realistic possibility of a potential loss above the policy limit, $1 million), but failed to warn Wegman of this possibility. Wegman sued Admiral for failure to act in good faith, alleging that it would promptly have sought indemnity from its excess insurer, AIG (policy limit $10 million). Budrik filed suit four years before Wegman notified AIG, which denied coverage for failure to timely notify. Budrik obtained a judgment of slightly more than $2 million. The district court dismissed Wegman’s suit against Admiral, and, on remand, granted a stay, pending state court resolution of Wegman’s suit against AIG. The Seventh Circuit dismissed appeal of the stay. Although Wegman’s suit against Admiral in federal court and against AIG in state court, are related, they do not satisfy the conditions for abstention.; the district court is not finished with the case. The stay really is a stay, and not a dismissal. View "R.C. Wegman Constr. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Town & Country Property, L.L.C., and Town & Country Ford, L.L.C. (collectively referred to as "T&C") appealed a circuit court's grant of summary judgment Amerisure Insurance Company and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (collectively referred to as "Amerisure"), holding that Amerisure was not obligated to pay a $650,100 judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of T&C and against Amerisure's insured, Jones-Williams Construction Company, because, the trial court reasoned, the faulty construction of the T&C facility upon which the judgment was based was not an "occurrence" covered under the commercial general-liability ("CGL") insurance policy Amerisure had issued Jones-Williams. On October 21, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment entered by the trial court, agreeing that faulty construction did not in and of itself constitute an occurrence for CGL-policy purposes and that, accordingly, "Amerisure was not required to indemnify Jones-Williams for the judgment entered against it insofar as the damages represented the costs of repairing or replacing the faulty work." On remand, the parties filed briefs with the trial court: T&C argued that the vast majority of the $650,100 judgment should be attributed to covered damage, while Amerisure argued that the damages T&C sought for the repair and/or replacement of defective construction exceeded the amount of the verdict and thus none of the judgment should be attributed to covered damage to personal property or nondefective portions of the T&C property. In its order resolving the issue on remand, the trial court identified $257,500 in damages claimed by T&C at trial as representing the repair or replacement of faulty construction. It therefore subtracted that amount from the $650,100 awarded by the jury and awarded T&C $392,600 plus interest and costs. Upon a review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the $392,600 judgment entered by the trial court was not supported by the evidence. The judgment entered by the trial court on remand was accordingly reversed, and the case was again remanded for the trial court to enter a final judgment in favor of T&C for the amount of damages the Supreme Court deemed T&C was entitled to: $600. View "Town & Country Property, L.L.C. v. Amerisure Insurance Co. " on Justia Law

Crown hired LMI to construct an office building. LMI subcontracted installation of windows and doors to Frontrunner. Frontrunner was required to maintain insurance that named LMI as an additional insured. Frontrunner purchased an occurrence-based commercial general liability policy from Consolidated that covered sums that insureds became legally obligated to pay because of property damage and requiring Consolidated to defend any suit seeking damages for covered property. Late in construction, Crown experienced water infiltration at numerous locations and other construction defects. Crown filed suit. LMI tendered defense to Consolidated, but Consolidated made no coverage decision for six months. Though LMI had not obtained a coverage decision, it settled with Crown. Although informed of all settlement talks, Consolidated participated in none and later denied coverage. The district court found in Consolidated’s favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Under Illinois insurance law, Consolidated had no duty to defend because the underlying complaint failed to allege damage to any covered property. Where the underlying suit alleges damage to the construction project itself because of a construction defect, there is no coverage; where the complaint alleges that a construction defect damaged something other than the project, coverage exists.View "Lagestee-Mulder, Inc. v. Consol. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case arose from a contract entered into by the parties where Ewing agreed to construct tennis courts for the school district. At issue was the interpretation of a Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy under Texas law. The district court held that a CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion applied in this case and that no exception restored coverage. The insured construction company faced liability, if at all, because it contracted to construct usable tennis courts for the school district and it had allegedly failed to perform. The court held that the district court correctly interpreted the contractual liability exclusion and correctly applied that exclusion with respect to the insurer's duty to defend the construction company. The court held, however, that the district court was premature in applying the exclusion to the insurer's duty to indemnify.

This case arose when a tower crane operated by Joy collapsed during construction of a high-rise condominium, killing seven people and injuring dozens, damaging several buildings and destroying one. At issue was the dispute in coverage under the excess policy for "additional insureds" within the meaning of the comprehensive general liability (CGL) policy. The court concluded that there were material issues of fact in this case as to whether the high-rise building under construction was residential or mixed-use; Admiral's other claims related to Joy's alleged misrepresentations in its underwriting submission were properly interposed against Reliance and the owners/developers as well as Joy; the LLC exclusion did not foreclose coverage of those owners/developers that were limited liability companies; and defendants' remaining arguments were without merit. Accordingly, the court held that the order of the Supreme Court, as modified by the Appellate Division, was not properly made.

Three primary insurers and one excess carrier appealed the district court's determination on summary judgment of their duties to defend a contractor who allegedly was responsible for a fire that occurred during construction. The district court held that the three primary insurers must split the costs initially spent by one of them defending the insured, while the excess insurer could not recover any of its defense costs from the primary insurers. The court concluded that National Union could seek reimbursement for its defense costs from Continental, Columbia, and North American through contractual subrogation. The district court did not err in its allocation of Continental's defense costs among Continental, Columbia, and North American. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in part and reversed in part, and the court remanded for further proceedings.

IWC appealed the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of IDH. Hawaiian, a Florida condominium, contracted with IDH for roof repair. While IDH was conducting the repairs, a large stone veneer wall fell, causing damage to the condominium. Hawaiian's insurer, ICW, sued IDH for negligence. IDH alleged that the wall fell because it was structurally unsound. During trial, at the close of ICW's case, the district court granted IDH's motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that no reasonable jury could find that IDH was negligent because ICW failed to present any evidence on the standard of care in the roofing industry. Without reaching the issue of whether roofers were "professionals" under Florida law, the court held that ICW was required to put forth some evidence of the standard of care in the roofing industry in order to meet its burden. Because ICW failed to do so, judgment as a matter of law was appropriate. Further, the specificity requirement in Rule 50(a)(2) did not bar the granting of judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

When Plaintiffs' efforts to act as general contractors on a new home foundered because of faulty work performed by a framing subcontractor, they made a claim on the homeowner's insurance policy issued to them by Defendant, Peerless Insurance Company. After Defendant denied the claim, citing two exclusions in the policy, Plaintiffs filed a declaratory-judgment action against the carrier. A hearing justice determined that the terms of the policy were ambiguous. Consequently, the hearing justice construed the policy against the insurer and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err when she determined that the policy was ambiguous; and (2) Plaintiffs were entitled to coverage for the repairs that were necessary to bring their home into compliance with the applicable building code.