Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose between the Gardens Condominium (a Washington nonprofit corporation) and Farmers Insurance Exchange (a California company) over the interpretation of a resulting loss exception in an all-risk insurance policy. The Gardens Condominium discovered water damage to the roof's fireboard, sheathing, and several sleepers and joists in 2019, caused by faulty construction which led to insufficient ventilation in the roof assembly. They sought coverage for the cost of repairing the damage, which was denied by Farmers Insurance Exchange, who argued that the damage was excluded under the faulty workmanship exclusion in the policy.The trial court ruled in favor of Farmers Insurance Exchange, stating that the policy intended to exclude damage where an uncovered event, such as faulty workmanship, initiated a sequence of events causing damage. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the resulting loss exception preserved coverage.The case reached the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. The court, following a de novo review, sided with the Court of Appeals, stating that a resulting loss exception must have effect to preserve coverage for loss resulting from covered perils, even if the peril is the natural consequence of an excluded peril. The court concluded that a resulting loss exception to the faulty workmanship exclusion revives coverage, even if the faulty workmanship exclusion would otherwise deny it. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Gardens Condominium v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

This case, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, involved an insurance dispute concerning coverage for defects and delays in the construction of an office building. Riverside Avenue Partners, Ltd. contracted with the Auchter Company to construct the building. After experiencing delays and water intrusion, Riverside Avenue Partners sued Auchter and its surety, Arch Insurance Company. Auchter and Arch filed a third-party complaint against TSG Industries, the window subcontractor, and other subcontractors. TSG's insurer, Landmark American Insurance Company, initially recognized Auchter as an additional insured but later refused to defend them, leading Amerisure, Auchter’s primary insurance provider, to defend Auchter under a reservation of rights.Upon review, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The court determined that the district court's purported final judgment in the case, which favored Amerisure, did not dispose of all claims against all parties, so it was not final. Specifically, Landmark's crossclaim against TSG, stating it had no duty to defend or indemnify TSG in the underlying action, remained unresolved. Despite Amerisure's post-argument briefing suggestion that the declaratory judgments issued below fully answered questions related to Landmark's obligations to TSG, the court maintained that the claims against TSG were still pending, thus lacking jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal and recommended the unresolved matters to the attention of the district court on remand. View "Amerisure Insurance Company v. Landmark American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had to apply Florida tort law to a dispute concerning the collapse of a crane boom. The plaintiff, NBIS Construction & Transport Insurance Services, Inc., an insurer of the crane's owner, sued the defendants, Liebherr-America, Inc., a distributor and servicer of the type of crane in question, for over $1.7 million in damages resulting from the collapse. The defendants argued that they were shielded from liability by Florida’s economic loss rule. The magistrate judge, after a five-day bench trial, rejected this argument. The court of appeals found Florida law unclear on this issue and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.The facts of the case involved a crane purchased by Sims Crane & Equipment Company from a non-party broker, which was manufactured by Liebherr Werk Ehingen GMbH. Two Sims crane operators received training from a Liebherr-America employee, which involved swapping out different configurations of the crane boom. However, the training was inadequate and did not provide sufficient information about the proper placement of specific pins which, if misadjusted, could cause the crane boom to collapse. When the crane boom did collapse during a construction project, causing a fatality and damage to the crane, NBIS filed a negligence suit against Liebherr-America.The key issue in the case was whether Florida’s economic loss rule, which generally limits recovery in tort cases to situations where there is damage to other property or personal injury, and not just economic loss, applied in this case. The defendants argued that the rule should apply because the plaintiff’s negligence claims were akin to failure to warn theories found in products liability law, which fall within the scope of the rule. The plaintiff argued that the rule should not apply because this was not a product liability case asserting a product defect, but rather a case alleging negligent services provided by the defendants. Because the court found Florida law unclear on this issue, it certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court. View "NBIS Construction & Transport Insurance Services, v. Liebherr-America, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed a lower court's decision that an insurance agency, Rames Inc., formerly known as Central Insurance Agency, had a duty to procure additional insurance coverage for a construction company, TCF Enterprises Inc., also known as Malmquist Construction. Rames was found to have breached that duty, thereby breaching the standard of care and negligently misrepresenting that it had obtained the coverage. The court also found that the policy's professional services exclusion would not have barred coverage for defense and indemnity. The dispute arose after Malmquist was sued by a developer due to a construction defect and realized it wasn't covered as an additional insured under a subcontractor's insurance policy as it had believed. Rames had been told by the subcontractor to add Malmquist as an additional insured, but it failed to do so. The jury awarded damages to Malmquist in the amount of $1,022,257.85. Rames appealed, but the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision. View "TCF Enterprises, Inc. v. Rames, Inc." on Justia Law

In a dispute arising from a failed subdivision in Missoula County, Montana, a group of property purchasers, led by Gilbert and Judith Johnston, claimed that Flying S Title and Escrow, Inc., breached a purported contract to provide title insurance for the properties they bought. The properties were originally platted as lots, but the purchasers believed that they would eventually be reconfigured into larger parcels. However, the necessary infrastructure was not installed and the amended plat was never recorded, so the parcels never came into existence. The purchasers claimed that pro forma documents provided by Flying S constituted a contract to insure the parcels. The Supreme Court of Montana disagreed, ruling that the pro forma documents did not constitute a contract, but were merely an offer to issue a title insurance policy for the parcels, subject to the terms stated in the documents. The court noted that a contract for title insurance could not exist under the pro forma documents because the parcels, and the title thereto, never existed. Furthermore, the court found that Flying S had not been unjustly enriched by the purchasers' premium payments because it had provided, as agreed, title insurance for the transaction completed by the purchasers to buy the lots. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of Flying S Title and Escrow, Inc. View "Johnston v. Flying S Title & Escrow, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, an accident occurred at a construction site which resulted in bodily injuries to Gaylon Cruse and Mark Duckworth. During the installation of roof trusses, a power crane operated by Douglas Forrest was prematurely released, causing a truss to fall and collapse onto other trusses, injuring Cruse and Duckworth. Southern Truss, the owner of the truck to which the crane was attached, had two insurance policies - a commercial auto policy from Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company (Artisan) and a commercial general liability policy from The Burlington Insurance Company (Burlington). Both insurance companies denied a duty to defend in the underlying lawsuit initiated by Cruse and Duckworth.Artisan filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend under its auto policy due to an operations exclusion clause and that Burlington owed a duty to defend. The district court denied both companies' motions for judgment, finding an ambiguity in Artisan's policy that should be construed in favor of the insured and that Burlington had a duty to defend some claims not covered by Artisan's policy. Both Artisan and Burlington appealed.The appeals court, applying Illinois law and conducting a de novo review, found no ambiguity in Artisan's policy. The court concluded that the operations exclusion applied because the injuries arose from the operation of the crane attached to the truck, whose primary purpose was to provide mobility to the crane. As such, Artisan had no duty to defend. Since Artisan had no duty to defend, the court determined that Burlington did have a duty to defend under its policy. Thus, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court. View "Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company v. Burlington Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had to decide whether rainwater that accumulated on a parapet roof one or more stories above the ground is considered "surface waters" under Massachusetts law for the purposes of the insurance policies in question. This determination was crucial for deciding whether the insureds, Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) and Steward Health Care System LLC (Steward), were subject to coverage limitations on "Flood" damage in the policies issued by Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (AGLIC).The interpretation of "surface waters" posed a novel issue of Massachusetts law that had not been previously addressed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). The court decided to certify the issue to the SJC as the existing case law did not provide a clear answer and the resolution may require policy judgments on applying Massachusetts law to this key insurance coverage issue.The case arose from a situation where Norwood Hospital Facility, a building owned by MPT and leased to Steward, suffered significant damage after severe thunderstorms. Rainwater accumulated on the hospital's roof and a second-floor courtyard, eventually seeping into the hospital's upper floors. Both Zurich and AGLIC, in their initial evaluations, determined that water damage in the hospital's basement was caused by "Flood," and would be subject to the policies' respective coverage limits. However, the insurers later characterized all the water damage, including that from the roof, as "surface water" and subject to the "Flood" coverage limits.The court concluded that whether rainwater pooled on a parapet roof constitutes "surface waters" in the policies' "Flood" definition is determinative of this interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the court certified the issue to the SJC for its consideration. View "Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered an appeal by Colony Insurance Company against First Mercury Insurance Company related to a settlement agreement for an underlying negligence case. Both companies had consecutively insured DL Phillips Construction, Inc. (DL Phillips) under commercial general liability insurance policies. After the settlement, Colony sued First Mercury, arguing that First Mercury needed to reimburse Colony for the full amount of its settlement contribution, as it contended that First Mercury's policies covered all damages at issue. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of First Mercury, prompting Colony's appeal.In the underlying negligence case, DL Phillips was hired to replace the roof of an outpatient clinic in Texas. Shortly after completion, the roof began leaking, causing damage over several months. The clinic's owner sued DL Phillips for various claims, including breach of contract and negligence. A verdict was entered against DL Phillips for over $3.7 million. Both Colony and First Mercury contributed to a settlement agreement, and then Colony sued First Mercury, arguing it was responsible for all the property damage at issue.The appellate court held that under the plain language of First Mercury's policies and relevant case law, First Mercury was only liable for damages that occurred during its policy period, not all damages resulting from the initial roof defect. The court also found that Colony failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact about whether there was an unfair allocation of damages, which would be necessary for Colony's contribution and subrogation claims. As such, the court affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of First Mercury and denied summary judgment for Colony. View "Colony Insurance Company v. First Mercury Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Homeowners Association alleged that M/I’s subcontractors caused construction defects in a Hanover Park development by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with building codes. The Association alleged that it would be required to repair the defects and “damage to other property caused by the [d]efects.” M/I demanded a defense from Acuity as the additional insured on a commercial general liability policy that Acuity issued to one of its subcontractors on which M/I was an additional insured. Acuity sought a declaratory judgment, arguing that the complaint failed to allege any “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” as those terms are defined by the policy and interpreted by Illinois law. The circuit court granted Acuity summary judgment.The Illinois Supreme Court held that the allegations sufficiently fall within the initial grant of coverage requirement that there be “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.” The court remanded for further consideration of whether policy exclusion bar coverage. To hold that all construction defects that result in property damage to the completed project are always excluded would mean that the exclusions in the policy related to business risk become meaningless. The business risk exclusions contemplate that some construction defects that result in property damage are covered and some are not, depending on various factors. View "Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals in this dispute arising out of environmental-cleanup and remediation work at two Superfund sites in Bronson, Michigan, holding that Restatement (Second) 193 does not govern the choice-of-law analysis for bad faith claims.Scott Fetzer Company filed this action asserting a breach of contract claim against certain insurance companies, including Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, alleging breaches of certain insurance contracts. Fetzer also asserted a tort claim against each company, arguing that they had acted in bad faith when handling his claims. As to Travelers, an administrative judge concluded that Ohio law applied to a discovery dispute concerning Scott Fetzer's bad faith claim. The court of appeals affirmed, determining that Ohio law governed the bad-faith discovery dispute because the cause of action was a tort. In affirming, the court applied the choice-of-law rules set forth in section 145 of the Restatement. Travelers appealed, arguing that section 193 governs the choice-of-law analysis for bad faith claims because they arise out of insurance contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly ruled that the choice-of-law analysis applicable to a bad-faith claim as provided by section 145. View "Scott Fetzer Co. v. American Home Assurance Co." on Justia Law