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
U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis
March 01, 2021 —
Emily Ashton & Olivia Konotey-Ahulu - BloombergThe U.K. government will set out its plans for stripping cladding from potentially unsafe apartment blocks, more than three years after a fire at London’s Grenfell Tower killed 72 people.
Reports suggest Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick will set out a package of measures amounting to billions of pounds when he makes a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday.
Ministers announced a 1.6 billion pound ($2.2 billion) “safety fund” to remove dangerous cladding last year but Jenrick is expected to announce additional support on top of this. The price for the repairs could be as high as 15 billion pounds, according to a parliamentary committee last June.
Reprinted courtesy of
Emily Ashton, Bloomberg and
Olivia Konotey-Ahulu, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Little Known Florida Venue Statue Benefitting Resident Contractors
June 30, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to
venue, there is a rather unknown venue statute that benefits resident contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers working on Florida projects. This statute,
Fla. Stat. s. 47.025, states:
Any venue provision in a contract for improvement to real property which requires legal action involving a resident contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or materialman, as defined in part I of chapter 713, to be brought outside this state is void as a matter of public policy. To the extent that the venue provision in the contract is void under this section, any legal action arising out of that contract shall be brought only in this state in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located, unless, after the dispute arises, the parties stipulate to another venue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
More Reminders that the Specific Contract Terms Matter
January 24, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIf there is a theme I have pounded upon here at Construction Law Musings in the over 13 years of posting, it is that the specific terms of your construction contracts will make a huge difference. While there have been reminders galore, a case from the Eastern District of Virginia presented another wrinkle on this theme. The wrinkle? A factoring company.
In CJM Financial, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC et. al., the Court examined this scenario (though it went into more detail than I will here): Leebcorp hired a subcontractor, Maston Creek Services to provide certain construction services under two separate contracts. Maston then hired CJM, a factoring company, and assigned CJM its receivables and the right to collect those receivables. We wouldn’t be discussing this case if all had worked out as planned, so you likely anticipate at least some of what came next. The short story is that Matson failed to pay some of its suppliers and Leebcorp exercised its termination rights under those contracts when Matson refused to cure. In the interim, CJM had paid part of certain payment applications to Matson in compliance with the factoring agreement. When Leebcorp failed to pay CJM for Matson’s work, CJM exercised its assigned rights to collect the receivables and sued Leebcorp for breach of contract. In response, Leebcorp counterclaimed for, among other counts including civil conspiracy, breach of contract based on Matson’s failure to perform. CJM moved to dismiss the counterclaims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge
July 19, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently held that the construction of a movie theater, which was performed in furtherance of a city’s redevelopment agenda, constitutes a “public work” within the meaning of California’s prevailing wage law. Cinema West, LLC v. Christine Baker, No. A144265, (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2017).
Like many California cities, the City of Hesperia (the “City”) endeavored to revitalize its downtown. In furtherance of this goal, the City acquired vacant property in its downtown with the hope of turning it into a new city hall, a public library, and “complimentary retail, restaurant, and entertainment establishments.” After completing construction of the civic buildings, the City entered into discussions with Cinema West, LLC (“Cinema West”) for the construction of a “state-of-the-art cinema experience.”
Under the agreement with the City, Cinema West agreed to purchase the property from the City at fair market value, obtain financing for the construction costs, and build and maintain the movie theater. The City, on the other hand, agreed to provide Cinema West with an interest-bearing loan forgivable over ten years, and to construct an adjacent parking lot “for use by Cinema West... as a parking lot for the movie theater.” The City, moreover, agreed to issue Cinema West a one-time payment as consideration for the operating covenant.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law
April 05, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit, applying California law, affirmed the district court's decision finding there was no coverage for construction defects. Archer W. Contractors v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3796 (9th Cir. March 2, 2017).
Archer Western Contractors (AWC) was the general contractor for the San Diego County Water Authority's emergency water storage project. The pump house and turbine generators suffered property damage. The damage flowed from AWC's allegedly defective work on the property.
After settling a construction defect lawsuit brought against it by the Water Authority, AWC filed this case against National Union for failing to indemnity portions of the settlement agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group
July 02, 2024 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPartners Yvette Davis and Beth Obra-White have been named co-chairs for the firm’s Construction Law Practice Group. Yvette, Beth and other diverse leaders within the firm play an integral role in the firm’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion initiatives.
Congratulations to Yvette & Beth for their new roles as practice group leaders!
Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
