Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

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.

This case arose from a contract between the school district and DJH to perform heating, ventilation, and air condition work. The contract required DJH to obtain a performance bond which DJH secured from Nova, a compensated surety. At issue was whether Nova was discharged from it surety obligation to the school district on the bases that the school district allegedly violated New York's Lien Law 70[1] by improperly diverting construction contract payments constituting trust fund assets to a non-beneficiary and breached the terms of the parties' performance bond. The court held that under the facts, Nova had not demonstrated that discharge of its surety obligation was warranted. The court also considered whether the school district was entitled to attorneys' fees expended in the prosecution of the litigation and concluded that the request for attorneys' fees was properly denied.

This declaratory judgment action was brought by Secura, an insurer for Horizon, a subcontractor on a troubled construction project. Horizon's two other insurers, State Auto and Federated later joined. Their dispute with Weitz arose out of a construction project in which Weitz was the general contractor for Metropolitan. After Weitz and Metropolitan brought breach of contract claims against each other, both filed third party complaints against Horizon for defective plumbing. Horizon's insurers defended and settled all claims against it and reimbursed Weitz for its defense of claims against Horizon. Weitz then contended that since it was an "additional insured" on Horizon's policies, the insurers should pay for attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending against Metropolitan's entire counterclaim. The insurers filed this action seeking a final judgment that they not be required to pay the attorney fees and costs. Applying Missouri law, the court rejected Weitz's argument that Metropolitan's counterclaim asserted potentially covered losses under the policies. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurers because Metropolitan's counterclaim did not state an "occurrence" giving rise to a possibility of coverage under the policies.

Appellant, an LLC, purchased an "all-risks" insurance policy for an office building it owned from Insurer. The building was significantly damaged after a general contractor Appellant had hired to renovate the building removed the waterproof membrane on the roof and the building was exposed to substantial rainfall. Insurer denied coverage, concluding that the damage did not result from a covered cause of loss. Appellant sued Insurer, alleging that Insurer breached the insurance policy and denied coverage in bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Insurer, concluding that the policy unambiguously excluded from coverage for the damage sustained to the building. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the damages sustained by the building were excluded from coverage based on the policy's rain limitation and the contractor's faulty workmanship in repairing the roof. In addition, although the doctrine of efficient proximate cause did not provide relief under the facts of this case, the Court adopted the doctrine of efficient proximate cause in Nevada.

Danny O'Neall was injured while working for Sadler Line Construction, a subcontractor of Alliance Construction. Sadler had commercial general liability (CGL) coverage with Federated Service Inusrance Company. In the underlying personal injury action, O'Neall sued Alliance and Sadler for negligence. In the instant action, Federated filed a declaratory judgment action against Alliance, alleging that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Alliance against O'Neall's personal injury action. The district court granted summary judgment for Federated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the parties, by requiring Sadler to name Alliance as an additional insured on its CGL policy, intended that Sadler would insure against loss caused by Alliance's negligence; and (2) Sadler's additional insured endorsement, which provided coverage for liability arising out of Sadler's operations, was broad enough to include coverage for Alliance's negligence even if Sadler was not negligent. Remanded.