Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

A severe thunderstorm caused significant damage to Norwood Hospital, owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) and leased to Steward Health Care System LLC (Steward). The storm led to extensive flooding in the hospital's basements and rainwater accumulation on the rooftop courtyard and parapet roofs, which then seeped into the building, causing further damage. MPT and Steward sought coverage from their insurers, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (AGLIC), respectively. Both policies had high overall coverage limits but lower sublimits for flood damage. The insurers argued that all the damage was due to "Flood" as defined in the policies, which included "surface waters," and thus subject to the lower sublimits.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted partial summary judgment to the insurers, interpreting "surface waters" to include rainwater accumulated on the roofs. The court allowed an interlocutory appeal, recognizing the substantial ground for difference of opinion on this legal issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit then certified the question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, asking whether rainwater accumulating on a building's rooftop courtyard or parapet roof constitutes "surface waters" under Massachusetts law.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concluded that the term "surface waters" is ambiguous in this context. The court noted the lack of a clear definition in the policies and the divided case law on the issue. Given this ambiguity, the court ruled in favor of the insureds, determining that rainwater accumulating on the rooftop courtyard and parapet roofs does not unambiguously constitute "surface waters" under the policies. Therefore, the damage from such water infiltration is not subject to the flood sublimits. View "Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc." on Justia Law

A commercial tenant and landlord entered into a contract for the construction and lease of a warehouse, with the landlord also acting as the general contractor. The contract included a waiver of subrogation, where both parties waived subrogation against each other for certain losses, including those caused by their subcontractors. After the warehouse sustained weather damage, the tenant’s insurer sought to recoup insurance payments by suing the subcontractors.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted summary judgment in favor of the subcontractors, concluding that they were intended beneficiaries of the waiver of subrogation in the contract between the tenant and landlord. The court did not consider any extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed this decision, finding that the waiver of subrogation in the contract did not unambiguously benefit the subcontractors and that the subcontractors were not intended third-party beneficiaries.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the waiver of subrogation in the contract between the tenant and landlord did not extend to the subcontractors. The court found that the language of the waiver was unambiguous and did not show an intent to benefit the subcontractors. However, the court found that the waiver of subrogation included in the subcontracts was ambiguous regarding whether it applied to the tenant’s insurer’s claims against the subcontractors. Therefore, the court held that extrinsic evidence was needed to determine the parties' intent regarding the scope of the subrogation waiver in the subcontracts.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court's decision, reversing the Circuit Court's summary judgment in favor of the subcontractors, and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider extrinsic evidence. View "Lithko Contracting v. XL Insurance America, Inc." on Justia Law

This case revolves around a dispute over an insurance claim following a house fire. The plaintiff, William Werner, owned a home in Springfield, Illinois, which was in foreclosure when it burned down in 2017. Werner's home insurance policy was with Auto-Owners Insurance Company. After the fire, Werner filed a claim seeking to recover his policy limit on the home itself and two smaller coverages, totaling just over $190,000. Auto-Owners denied Werner’s claim for the full replacement value of the home, arguing that Werner had lost any insurable interest in the full value of the property after the judicial sale occurred and all of Werner’s rights of redemption had expired.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The district court ruled in favor of Auto-Owners, holding that at the time of the fire, Werner’s only remaining insurable interest in the property was based on his narrow right under Illinois law to occupy the home until 30 days after the judicial sale was confirmed. The court awarded Werner the rental value of that temporary right, which amounted to just under $4,000.Werner appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling. The court agreed with the lower court's interpretation of Illinois insurance law, stating that Werner's insurable interest at the time of the fire was limited to the value of his temporary right of possession. The court noted that Werner still held legal title to the property when the fire occurred, but he had no legal right to redeem it from foreclosure or otherwise retain it. The court concluded that Werner's insurable interest did not extend to the full value of the property. View "Werner v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves plaintiffs Martin Tait, Jane Tait, and Bry-Mart, LLC (collectively, the Taits) who sued Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (Commonwealth) for breach of a title insurance policy. The Taits alleged that Commonwealth failed to pay the full amount by which their property’s value was diminished due to an undisclosed easement. The Taits had purchased a residential property in Danville for $1.25 million and had plans to subdivide the property into two lots. However, they discovered a separate 1988 maintenance easement that they believed would impact the marketability and value of the property and interfere with its potential development.The trial court granted Commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the policy required Commonwealth to compensate the Taits only for the value of their actual use of the property as a vacant residential lot suitable for only one home rather than its highest and best use as a subdividable lot. The court reasoned that the legal standard for title insurance losses did not permit consideration of a property’s highest and best use, only its actual use as vacant residential land.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four disagreed with the trial court's interpretation. The appellate court held that the Taits’ policy entitles them to reimbursement for the diminution in value of their property based on its highest and best use. The court found that the Taits’ evidence of the likelihood of subdivision and the value of a subdividable lot created a triable issue of fact regarding the amount of the Taits’ loss under the policy, thereby precluding summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's decision. View "Tait v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A real estate developer, 3534 East Cap Venture, LLC, and a construction company, McCullough Construction, LLC, were involved in a dispute with their insurers, Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Endurance American Insurance Company. The dispute centered around the coverage of two identical builders’ risk insurance policies for a residential and retail complex under construction in the District of Columbia. During construction, the absence of a vapor barrier in the architect's plans led to the condensation of vapor into water during cold weather, causing nearly $1.5 million in damages. The insurers denied the claims, arguing that the policies excluded losses caused by atmospheric dampness or temperature changes.The case was initially brought to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, but was moved to federal district court due to diversity of citizenship. The district court ruled in favor of the insurers, holding that the exclusions for losses caused by "dampness of atmosphere" or "changes in temperature" applied. The court also held that the ensuing-loss exception to the exclusions did not apply because losses from "water damage" to the building were "inextricably intertwined" with—and indeed were "one and the same" as—losses covered by the dampness and temperature exclusions.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the ensuing-loss clause in the insurance policies applied to losses from water damage caused by the excluded perils of dampness and temperature changes. Therefore, the policies covered the losses at issue. The court remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the insureds on the question of liability. View "3534 East Cap Venture, LLC v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a dispute between California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI) and Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied World) over a commercial general liability insurance policy. The policy was issued by Allied World to CSI. The dispute arose when Allied World refused to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim following a construction site accident. The parties disagreed on whether one of the policy’s exclusions for bodily injury liability applied in this situation. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to the employees of any “contractor,” but the term “contractor” was not defined in the policy. Allied World argued that the term was unambiguous and the exclusion precluded coverage for the negligence claim, while CSI argued that the term was ambiguous and the exclusion did not apply to the negligence claim.The trial court ruled in favor of CSI, granting its motion for summary judgment and denying Allied World’s. The court found that the term “contractor” in the disputed exclusion was ambiguous and interpreted the term in favor of CSI.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Seven affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the term “contractor” in the disputed exclusion was ambiguous. The court interpreted the term based on CSI’s objectively reasonable expectations and concluded that the exclusion did not apply to the negligence claim in question. Therefore, Allied World was obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against the negligence claim. View "California Specialty Insulation, Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In September 2016, Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza (the Buyers) purchased a property in Missouri from Perry and Joanie Sullivan (the Sellers). Prior to the sale, the city of New Melle had sued the Sellers over a barn they had built on the property, alleging it violated city zoning ordinances. The Buyers were added as defendants to this lawsuit after they purchased the property. The Buyers demanded coverage from their title insurance company, Alliant National Title Insurance Co. (Alliant), but Alliant refused. The Buyers then sued Alliant, claiming it had breached the title insurance policy by refusing to defend them in the New Melle lawsuit.The case was first heard in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, where Alliant moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted Alliant's motion, concluding that the unambiguous language of the title insurance policy provided no coverage for the Buyers. The Buyers appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the title insurance policy was unambiguous and did not provide coverage for the Buyers. The court noted that the policy provided coverage only if a notice, describing any part of the land, was recorded in the public records setting forth the violation or intention to enforce. Since no such notice was recorded, the court concluded that the policy did not provide coverage. The court also rejected the Buyers' arguments that other provisions of the policy provided coverage, finding that these arguments were precluded by an exclusion in the policy. View "Sachtleben vs. Alliant National Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2003, the City of Chicago contracted with Walsh Construction Company to manage the construction of a canopy and curtain wall system at O’Hare International Airport. Walsh subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to fabricate and install steel columns to support the wall and canopy. Several years into the project, the City discovered cracks in the welds of the steel columns and sued Walsh for breaching its contract. Walsh, in turn, sued LB Steel under its subcontract. Walsh also asked LB Steel’s insurers to defend it in the City’s lawsuit, but they never did. Walsh eventually secured a judgment against LB Steel, which led it to declare bankruptcy. Walsh then sued LB Steel’s insurers to recover the costs of defending against the City’s suit and indemnification for any resulting losses.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff insurers on both issues. The court reasoned that, because the physical damage at issue was limited to LB Steel’s own products, it did not constitute “property damage” as that term appears in the policies, thereby precluding coverage. As for the duty to defend, the court determined that the Insurers had none, because the City’s underlying claims did not implicate potential coverage under LB Steel’s policies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the defects in the welds and columns do not constitute “property damage” under LB Steel’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies. The court also found that the insurers had no duty to defend Walsh in the City’s underlying suit. The court further affirmed the district court's denial of Walsh’s request for sanctions under § 155. View "St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company v. Walsh Construction Company" on Justia Law

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