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
Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFA number of news sources have reported on the recent death of Nevada construction defect attorney, Nancy Quon. Ms. Quon was implicated in a recent scandal in which a group conspired to control homeowner associations in order to divert construction defect lawsuits to the members of the conspiracy.
Ms. Quon was found dead in her bathtub. The details are still under investigations. She and her boyfriend were accused of a failed arson/suicide scheme in 2010. Ms. Quon survived an attempt to burn down her home. Subsequently, her boyfriend obtained some gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GBH) for her, as part of another failed suicide attempt.
Subsequent to Ms. Quon’s death, David Amesbury was found in California dead by hanging. Mr. Amesbury took a plea deal in the case, and he had admitted his role in providing legal and construction contracts to firms in the conspiracy. He was accused of fixing HOA elections.
Read the full story…
Read the full story…
Read the full story…
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New ConsensusDocs 242 Design Professional Change Order Form Helps Facilitate Compensation for Changes in Design Services
November 05, 2024 —
Brian Perlberg - ConsensusDocsConsensusDocs is publishing a new ConsensusDocs 242 Change in Services and Compensation, a change order for design services by a design professional. In the design and construction industry, one thing is certain – change. The work scope included in basic design services an architect or engineer provides occurs somewhat regularly. Previously, ConsensusDocs did not have a standard contract document for changing design professionals’ prices. As a result of user feedback, the ConsensusDocs Contract Content Advisory Council (CCAC) drafted this new architect/engineer change order. The CCAC unanimously approved the new contract document and publication is set for October 14, 2024. The document will be available for most ConsensusDocs subscribers. The full, owner, design-professional, and short-form subscription packages will include the document. A subscription package can be purchased through ConsensusDocs here.
The design professional change order helps owners of construction projects keep track of additional services their design professionals perform. The design professional must provide itemized labor breakdowns for each invoice. The new ConsensusDocs 242 has options for compensation to be actual hours at the billing rate or a lump sum. The new contract document form also has a table for the remaining project deliverables and their respective due dates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Perlberg, ConsensusDocs CoalitionMr. Perlberg may be contacted at
bperlberg@ConsensusDocs.org
Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed
February 23, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Court of Appeals found that Exxon Mobil Corporation was an additional insured under the CGL policy for Exxon's service provider. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015).
Exxon contracted with Wyatt Field Service Company to perform "services" as set forth in various work orders from Exxon's affiliates. The contract also required Wyatt to maintain $5 million of commercial general liability insurance. The contract provided that the policies must cover Exxon and its affiliates "as additional insureds in connection with the performance of Services."
In 2008, Wyatt was assigned to work on a flexicoker unit at Exxon's refinery. Wyatt was to reinstall dummy nozzles and chains. It completed this service in October 2008. Three years later, one of the dummy nozzles pulled free, and the escaping steam and coke burned three individuals who were working on the unit. After the accident, it was discovered that the safety chain had been installed in the wrong location so that it did not properly secure the dummy nozzle.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
What Every Project Participant Needs to Know About Delay Claims
August 05, 2024 —
Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute ResolverA “delay” on a construction project is defined as the stretching out of the time for completion of certain key milestone scopes of work which can impact the completion date of an entire project, due to some circumstances or events that were not reasonably anticipated when the project began. 2 Construction Law ¶ 6.01 (Matthew Bender, 2024). While delays can be caused by any number of events, the most common are defective plans and specifications; design changes; severe weather and other, similar unforeseeable events; unforeseen or differing site conditions; unavailability of materials or labor; labor inefficiencies or stoppages; contractor negligence; and owner influences, including construction changes or outright interference by the owner or its agents. If the project schedule is not recovered following a delay, then the project schedule will likely be extended, resulting in an increase in the contractor’s costs of performance. A contractor that has experienced a delay on a project can take certain actions to pursue recovery of any damages the contractor may have incurred. However, to do so it is important to understand the different types of delays and the methods for establishing the delays.
I. Types of Delays
Delays may be categorized as (1) critical versus non-critical delays, (2) excusable versus non-excusable delays, and (3) compensable versus non-compensable delays. A critical delay is a delay that affects the project completion date and delays the entire project. In essence, a critical delay is one that will extend the critical path of a project. A non-critical delay is a delay that has no effect on the project’s critical path. Courts have recognized that delays to work not on the critical path will generally not delay the completion of a project. G.M. Shupe, Inc. v U.S., 5 Cl. Ct. 662, 728 (1984). Such a non-critical delay may affect the completion of certain activities, but does not affect the completion date of the entire project. In order for a delay to provide the basis for a claim for additional time or money, the delay must impact critical path activities on the project schedule.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLCMr. Vicknair may be contacted at
agv@darcyvicknair.com
South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage
May 20, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFPR Newswire reports that the Carolinas Associated General Contractors (CAGC) have successfully persuaded the South Carolina legislature to pass a bill restoring commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. Governor Nikki Hartley signed the legislation on May 17.
A South Carolina Supreme Court decision given on January 7, 2011, had ended commercial general liability coverage in the state. Senate Bill 431 addressed this decision, restoring the ability of home builders to obtain CGL coverage.
PR Newswire quotes South Carolina homebuilder, Allen Amsler: “We have seen a lot of legislation with substantial impact to our business over the years. However, I would place this in the same level of importance with the original tort reform legislation. The effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling could have been catastrophic to our industry in South Carolina had it not been for this bill. Thanks to all those in the House, Senate and the Governor’s office who assisted us.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again
July 13, 2017 —
Duane Craig - Construction InformerIf you’ve ever missed out on a government contract, part of the reason might have been because entrenched government contractors gained competitive advantages by under-paying their workers. The Fair Pay & Safe Workplaces executive order was nullified by Congress this year and much of the reporting by the business press presented just one side of the story. Here’s another perspective.
When awarding federal contracts the government is supposed to consider each contractor’s compliance with labor laws related to pay, health and safety. But, there is a huge problem with enforcement on a government contract, according to Senator Elizabeth Warren and other observers.
- Some federal contractors frequently underpay their workers violating wage and hour laws. More than 300,000 workers were cheated out of pay while working under federal contracts in the last decade. There were 12,000 companies working on federal contracts that were doing the cheating.
- 692 federal contractors significantly violated federal labor laws, and then repeated the behavior, over and over. The repeat offenders receive millions in taxpayer dollars as they violated safety and health standards. Those violations caused a wide range of physical harm to workers. Dozens of workers died, and countless numbers were exposed to chemicals that cause long term health problems.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Duane Craig, Construction InformerMr. Craig may be contacted at
dtcraig@constructioninformer.com
Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test
February 15, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1).
The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law.
Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:
Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law.
Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).
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
