Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims
January 10, 2018 —
Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterOn December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Insurance Coverage Partner Lawrence J. Bracken II Awarded Emory Public Interest Committee’s 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award
February 26, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn February 7, the Emory Public Interest Committee (EPIC) honored insurance coverage partner Lawrence (Larry) J. Bracken II with their 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award at the annual
EPIC Inspiration Awards. As one of the Emory University School of Law’s signature events, the Inspiration Awards celebrate members of the community who do extraordinary work in the public interest and provide funding for public interest summer jobs.
Larry has more than 37 years of experience litigating insurance coverage, class action and commercial cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States. He represents policyholders in insurance coverage litigation and arbitration, and is a Fellow of the American College of Coverage Lawyers. Larry also has litigated class actions and other complex commercial disputes for more than three decades. Pro bono representation of clients in habeas corpus, prisoner rights, and landlord-tenant litigation is an important part of his practice. Larry currently serves as the President of the Board of Directors of the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend
November 15, 2021 —
Sarah J. Odia & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsOn Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as the facts were available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the claim. The court also held that an insured has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies to create a duty to defend.
In Zurich, Ironshore refused to defend to its insured against multiple property damage claims arising out of construction defects, claiming that its policies’ continuing and progressive damage exclusions barred coverage. The underlying lawsuits made no specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred. Ironshore claimed that the property damage had occurred due to faulty work that predated the commencement of its policies. Two different federal trial courts came to conflicting conclusions in the underlying cases. One held that Ironshore had a duty to defend because Ironshore failed to show that an exception to the exclusion did not apply. The second granted summary judgment in favor of Ironshore holding that the insured failed to meet its burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applied.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah J. Odia, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment
June 25, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent opinion in the property insurance coverage dispute, Bryant v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1232a (Fla. 4thDCA 2019), discusses the doctrine known as an insurer’s “confession of judgment.” In this case, an insured suffered water damage from a pipe leak. The insurer paid the insured $6,000 because of sublimits in the property insurance policy. There was a $5,000 sublimit for mold and a $1,000 sublimit for water leakage that occurs over a period of 14 days or more. The insured sued the insurer for covered water damage arguing that the sublimits did not apply.
After the lawsuit was filed, an agreed order was entered that stayed the case pending an appraisal. The appraisal award did not apply the $1,000 sublimit to the water damage from the pipe leak and segregated out damage for mold. (The insurer already paid the mold sublimit). The insurer ended up paying the appraisal award for the water damage caused by the pipe leak after deducting its pre-lawsuit sublimit payment. The insurer paid the award and did NOT challenge the application of the $1,000 sublimit in court, although it could have since coverage issues are decided by courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits
July 19, 2017 —
Bethany Barrese – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1
The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million.
Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Barrese may be contacted at
blb@sdvlaw.com
Wine without Cheese? (Why a construction contract needs an order of precedence clause)(Law Note)
August 11, 2011 —
Melissa Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaFor today’s law note, I’m addressing a comment that came to me last week from Dave O’Hern of Miller O’Hern Construction. Dave writes:
I am a general contractor doing a fuel tank replacement project for our county. In the specifications there is a spec for a UL 142 tank, on the plans the spec references UL 2085 ? a much more expensive tank. My subcontractor bid the UL 142 tank. The specifications state that the specs and plans are on the same level of precedence.
The county wants me to furnish the more expensive tank without compensation citing the clause that states the plans and specs are complementary and what is called for by one is binding as if called by all and the most stringent requirement will apply.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy
August 13, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe appellate court reversed the trial court's determination that the policy covered only mold damage, but not damage caused by water seepage. Henderson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 539 (Ga. Ct. App. July 16, 2014).
The homeowner's policy covered losses caused by constant seepage or leakage of water or the presence of condensation or moisture over a period of time. The insureds also paid for additional coverage for "ensuing mold . . . caused by or resulting from" one of the covered risks, including water seepage.
Ms. Henderson discovered a puddle of water in her kitchen and contacted Georgia Farm Bureau. The insurer's contractor tore out a section of the floor, but found no other problems of water seepage. Later, the Hendersons removed another part of the floor and discovered standing water and black mold underneath. The Hendersons had to vacate their house for one year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
