What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.
February 14, 2023 —
David Humphreys - Carson Law Group, PLLCThis article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog
One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance.
A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage.
When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases.
Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense.
A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage.
Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed.
However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is
included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added).
It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
“Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS
F. Symbols
1. Plus Sign
A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that:
“Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion.
Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it
and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck.
This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . .
“Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.”
To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.”
David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.
*See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums
June 09, 2016 —
Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogThis article pertains to needed condominium construction defect warranty reform legislation that the Maryland Legislature has been reluctant to enact into law. Below is an explanation of the legislation and a list of practical steps CAI members can take to support the legislation during the upcoming 2017 legislative session.
Background
The warranty reform legislation was unsuccessfully introduced during the 2016 legislative session as “Senate Bill 250” (“SB 250”) and “House Bill 1170” (“HB 1170”). Both bills were identical, one being filed in the Senate and the other in the House of Delegates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.Mr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
June 13, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of State of Texas v. U.S., et al. The Court of Appeals held that the petition for mandamus filed by the State of Texas essentially seeking to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish a schedule for the operation of the Yucca Mountain, NV nuclear waste depository was untimely filed. The depository is very controversial in Nevada, and as a consequence, none of the many deadlines established by Congress have been met.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor
April 25, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe issue before the 11th Circuit was whether, under Florida law, a general contractor had coverage for a property damage claim limited to the defective work performed by a subcontractor, and not affecting any other portion of the project. The court found no coverage in Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auchter Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5412 (11th Cir. March 15, 2012).
Amelia Island Company contracted with Auchter Company, a general contractor, for construction of an inn and conference room. Auchter subcontracted with Register Contracting Company to install the Inn’s roof. Pursuant to the Florida Building Code, installation of the roof required that it be able to withstand 110 m.p.h. winds.
Register completed installing the roof tiles in January 1998. Beginning in 2002, the tiles began dislodging from the roof. During the 2004 hurricane season, three hurricanes caused more tiles to come off the roof. Some of these tiles hit other tiles, cracking them.
In 2006, the parties went to arbitration over the costs of repairs for the roof.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee
November 23, 2016 —
Renata L. Hoddinott & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn a case which was the subject of our Alert dated October 31, 2016 (click here for prior alert), the Court of Appeal of the State of California – Second Appellate District on November 17, 2016 issued a modification to the opinion in Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc. (10/26/16 – Case No. B268937) with no change in judgment. In Khosh, the Court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant under the Privette doctrine where plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant affirmatively contributed to his injuries.
Reprinted courtesy of
Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Historical Long-Tail Claims in California Subject to a Vertical Exhaustion Rule
December 03, 2024 —
Will S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.California’s complex saga of long-tail injury coverage under general liability policies took an interesting turn in the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Cement.1 In Truck, the court made it clear that Insureds can access excess policy limits without first exhausting all triggered underlying primary coverage, provided the underlying limits for the same policy period have been exhausted.
A Brief Summary of the History of Coverage for Long-Tail Claims in California2
Understanding the contextual significance of Truck requires a brief survey of California’s gradually developed case law with respect to long-tail progressive injury and damage claims. A “long-tail claim” typically involves progressively manifesting damage, injury, or disease that develops over a period of multiple years. Because general liability insurance is traditionally triggered based on the timing of when bodily injury or property damage occurs, the progressive nature of these claims has led many courts to analyze when injury or damage occurs in these claims. In doing so, California courts have generally found that these injuries occur across numerous years, thereby triggering numerous policies.3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
WBennett@sdvlaw.com
Standard of Care
December 16, 2019 —
Jay Gregory - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogOne of the key concepts at the heart of Board complaints and civil claims against a design professional is whether or not that design professional complied with the applicable standard of care. In order to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must establish (typically with the aid of expert testimony) that the design professional deviated from the standard of care. On the other side of the coin, to defend a design professional against a professional malpractice claim, defense counsel attempts to establish that – contrary to the claimant’s allegations – the design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. Obviously, it becomes very important in such a claim situation to determine what the standard of care is that applies to the conduct of the defendant design professional. Often, this is easier said than done. There is no dictionary definition or handy guidebook that identifies the precise standard of care that applies in any given situation. The “standard of care” is a concept and, as such, is flexible and open to interpretation. Traditionally, the standard of care is expressed as being that level of service or competence generally employed by average or prudent practitioners under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locale. In other words, to meet the standard of care a design professional must generally follow the pack; he or she need not be perfect, exemplary, outstanding, or even superior – it is sufficient merely for the designer to do that which a reasonably prudent practitioner would do under similar circumstances. The negative or reverse definition also applies, to meet the standard of care, a practitioner must refrain from doing what a reasonably prudent practitioner would have refrained from doing.
Although we have this ready definition of the standard of care, in any given dispute it is practically inevitable that the parties will have markedly different opinions as to: (1) what the standard of care required of the designer; and (2) whether the defendant design professional complied with that requirement. The claimant bringing a claim against a design professional typically will be able to find an expert reasonably qualified (at least on paper) who will offer an opinion that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care. It is just as likely that the counsel for the defendant design professional will be able to find his or her own expert who will counter the opinion of the claimant’s expert and maintain that the defendant design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. What’s a jury to think?
The concept of standard of care is intertwined with the legal concept of negligence. In the vast majority of law suits against design professionals, a claimant (known as the plaintiff) will assert a claim for negligence against the design professional now known as the defendant.1 As every first year law student learns while studying the field of “Torts,” negligence has four subparts. In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In other words, to establish a claim against a defendant design professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care but breached that duty and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jay Gregory, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Gregory may be contacted at
jgregory@grsm.com
White and Williams Celebrates Chambers 2024 Rankings
June 21, 2024 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams practice groups and attorneys have been ranked in this year's Chambers USA 2024 Guide. Among the rankings, the firm has been recognized in the areas of Insurance and Real Estate: Finance in Pennsylvania, and Construction in Maryland.
Chambers recognized Tim Davis, Managing Partner of the Firm, and Nancy Frantz, Chair of the Real Estate Finance Group, both of whom were recognized for Real Estate: Finance. Chambers also ranked Steven Coury, Managing Partner of the Stamford, CT Office, for Real Estate, as well as Randy Maniloff, Partner, and Patricia Santelle, Chair Emeritus/Former Managing Partner and Chair of the Executive Committee, for Insurance. David Marion, Senior Counsel and Chambers’ Senior Statespeople (22-years ranked) was recognized for Litigation: General Commercial. Partner David Gilliss, Managing Partner of the Maryland office, was recognized for Construction and Amy Vulpio, Co-Chair of the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Practice, was recognized for Bankruptcy/Restructuring.
In one review of Tim Davis, a client described, "He's been around a long time; he's seen it all and has an instinctive feel for getting to the right outcome." Davis has been listed for the past four years and was described by Chambers as, “experienced in representing clients, including insurance companies, banks and investments funds, in a wide variety of real estate finance transactions.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
