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
Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix
January 25, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have stated on numerous occasions here at Musings that in Virginia, contract claims and tort claims (read fraud) don’t mix. A recent case from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia presents another example of this principle. In Itility LLC v. The Staffing Resource Group, Judge Ellis of the Alexandria Division, considered ITility’s claims of fraud and breach of contract against SRG and one of its officers based upon SRG’s alleged violation of its duties under a teaming agreement. The claim by ITility was that TSRG provided false and misleading resumes and thus damaged ITility. SRG filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Court was therefore required to resolve the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff’s fraud claim is barred by Virginia’s “source of duty” rule; (2) whether plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy is barred by SRG’s participation in the business expectancy, and (3) whether the teaming agreement between the parties bars plaintiff’s claims for consequential and punitive damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included
October 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe owners of One Bal Harbour in Bal Harbour, Florida have filed for bankruptcy and are seeking to sell off the luxury condominium and hotel building. There have been problems with the building, including flooding and allegations of structural defects. The original developer went bankrupt and sold before the construction defect lawsuits begain. The building’s opening price of $13 million won’t wipe out Elcom’s $20 million in debt.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMcGraw Hill Financial announced “plans to sell a construction-data unit concentrated on the U.S. market” according to The Wall Street Journal. This follows McGraw Hill’s determination to “focus on global operations and cutting costs.”
“The construction division ‘is not a business linked to the global markets,’” Douglas L. Peterson, McGraw Hill’s Chief Executive said to The Wall Street Journal. “’It's very different’ than its other units, such as Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, J.D. Power or S&P Capital IQ, with the potential for larger international footprints.”
McGraw Hill’s construction division “sells commercial-real-estate information to developers and manufacturers” and “generates about $170 million in annual revenue.” The division “employs about 650 people.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?
April 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn Colorado, regulators are questioning the true value of rooftop solar panels, reported the Denver Business Journal: “Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. (NYSE: XEL), the biggest utility in Colorado, has said it believes Colorado’s current ‘net metering’ policy means the utility is overpaying customers who have rooftop solar power systems.”
Currently, “Xcel...credits customers at a rate of 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour of excess power produced.” However, the utility company believes that “the ‘true value’ of the rooftop solar electricity is about half what it’s paying—just 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour.”
According to the Denver Business Journal, supporters argue that “Xcel has undervalued the electricity and hasn’t accounted for the systems’ environmental and economic attributes.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Super Lawyers Selects Haight’s Melvin Marcia for Its 2023 Northern California Rising Stars List
July 16, 2023 —
Melvin F. Marcia - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPCongratulations to Melvin Marcia who was selected to the 2023 Northern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melvin F. Marcia, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Marcia may be contacted at
mmarcia@hbblaw.com
Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline
February 18, 2015 —
Bloomberg News(Bloomberg) -- Builders broke ground on fewer U.S. residential construction projects in January as demand for single-family homes cooled from an almost seven-year high, signaling the rebound in housing remains uneven.
Housing starts declined 2 percent to a 1.07 million annual rate, following the prior month’s 1.09 million pace, a Commerce Department report showed Wednesday in Washington. The median forecast of 82 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 1.07 million. Permits, a proxy for future construction, also fell.
Student debt, tight credit conditions and rising prices are probably preventing would-be first-time homebuyers from entering the market, which will damp construction. At the same time, a strengthening labor market and rising household formation may support building of rental units, underpinning residential real estate.
Nina Glinski may be contacted at nglinski@bloomberg.net; Shobhana Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know
September 07, 2017 —
Jesse Witt - The Witt Law FirmColorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements.
The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps.
First, the board must deliver notice of the potential construction defect action to all homeowners and the affected construction professionals at their last known addresses. This requirement does not apply to construction professionals identified after the notice has been mailed, or to construction professionals joined in a previously-approved lawsuit. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects. The notice must also call a meeting of all homeowners. The notice should be sent to the construction professionals at least five days before the homeowners.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
