Any construction professional working in Florida likely is familiar with the state’s notice and opportunity to repair statute (“chapter 558”) that creates a process for trying to resolve construction defect claims without litigation. As the first step in this mandatory process, a property owner must serve a chapter 558 notice on the construction professional, which notice describes the alleged defects and damages. Many construction professionals submit chapter 558 notices to their general liability insurers and request a defense. But it has always been an open question whether the chapter 558 process is a “suit” triggering an insurer’s duty to defend—until now. In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, the Florida Supreme Court decided that the chapter 558 process is a “suit” but left open the possibility that the process is only a “suit” when an insurer says it is. In a per curiam opinion in the original federal case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit relied on the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion to vacate the district court decision holding that the chapter 558 process is not a “suit” and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Articles Posted in Construction
Some Decisions Policyholders Can Be Thankful for this Year
It’s that time of the year when Americans gather together, enjoy a feast, and fall asleep in front of the TV. But before the tryptophan kicks in, we also like to give thanks for the good things that have happened in the past year. Corporate policyholders can share in the tradition, as this year has produced a number of court decisions that favored insureds and protected their coverage expectations. Here are a few of the cases we are most thankful for:
Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc.
This case out of the South Carolina Supreme Court gave generously to policyholders in a number of ways this year (giving us the opportunity to post in this blog again and again and again). The case involved defective construction claims against a developer. The developer’s insurer, Harleysville, provided a defense under a vague reservation of rights letter. After the underlying plaintiffs were awarded verdicts against the developer, Harleysville sued to avoid covering the judgments. The court ruled against Harleysville on four issues:
- Harleysville’s vague, general reservation of rights letter did not effectively reserve its rights to contest coverage under the terms and exclusions in the policy;
- Where the underlying verdicts did not apportion the damages between covered and uncovered losses, the insurer bore the burden of proving amounts allocable to uncovered losses. Where the insurer failed to meet that burden, it had to cover the entire verdict;
- Punitive damages awarded in the verdicts were found to be covered under Harleysville’s policy; and
- The owners’ association, which was asserting the dissolved developer’s coverage rights in the case, had standing to challenge the insurer’s reservation of rights letter.
Harleysville is a case that just keeps on giving.
Verizon Communications v. Illinois National Insurance Company
The duty to provide a defense, or reimburse defense costs, is one of the most important features of liability insurance. You could say it’s the stuffing, where indemnity is the turkey. The Delaware Superior Court emphasized that obligation in Verizon to the tune of $48 million in defense costs that the insurer had refused to pay. This decision was important because it rejected the insurer’s attempt to define the vague term “securities claim” narrowly to avoid its obligation to pay defense costs. More broadly, the court upheld the pro-policyholder interpretative doctrine of contra proferentem, rejecting the insurer’s argument that the doctrine should not apply where the insured is a large, sophisticated corporation. Applying the doctrine, the court held that unless it can be shown that the insured had a hand in drafting the policy language, ambiguous terms should be interpreted against the insurer. A more detailed analysis of the decision by this firm can be found here.
All State Interior Demolition Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company and McMillin Management Services v. Financial Pacific Insurance Company
Thanksgiving dinner is always better with more guests. Additional Insured endorsements in policies extend the invitation to more parties that may require a seat at the table of insurance protection. This is especially important in the construction context, where developers and general contractors rely on numerous subcontractors’ insurance policies to protect them from liability arising from those subcontractors’ work. These two decisions rejected insurers’ attempts to narrow the application of additional insured endorsements.
In All State Interior, previously highlighted here, a New York County trial court interpreted an endorsement broadly, granting additional insured status to companies that didn’t technically contract with the subcontractor, and who weren’t named in the endorsement. The court, in essence, incorporated the terms of the contract between All State and the subcontractor into the endorsement to trigger additional insured coverage for the project owner, site lessor, and construction manager as All State’s “partners, directors, officers, employees, agents and representatives.”
In McMillin, the insurer’s policy granted additional insured status to McMillin, the general contractor of a project, for “liability arising out of [the subcontractor’s] ongoing operations,” and excluded additional insured status for the insured’s completed operations. The insurer denied defense coverage on the basis that the subcontractor had finished working on the project. The California Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that the endorsement’s phrase “arising out of” is broader than “during,” and so the liability did not have to arise while the insured was still working on the project.
Nooter Corporation v. Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company
When it’s time for dessert, allocating the available pie to make sure everyone gets what they deserve can be tricky. This year, Missouri joined the ranks of “all sums” states that maximize coverage for policyholders with long-tail claims stretching over several years. The “all sums” method of allocation allows an insured to allocate all of its damages from long-tail losses to a single year of coverage. This ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals was based on the plain language of the policies, which promise to indemnify the insured for all sums the insured is legally obligated to pay for occurrences during the policy period. The court also ruled that all triggered primary policies across a period of years need not be exhausted before excess policies in the period selected by the policyholder can be triggered. The court ruled that only the primary policy in one year needs to be exhausted before that year’s excess policies are triggered. For a more thorough analysis of this case, click here.
Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company
Rather than brave the stampedes of Black Friday, one can get good deals on holiday gifts on Cyber Monday. But to protect against cyber thieves, make sure your insurance coverage will protect you. In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York interpreted the computer fraud provision of a crime policy to do just that. Policyholder Medidata was the victim of fraud when someone tricked its employees into wiring money overseas, using spoofed emails that looked like they came from the company’s president. Medidata’s insurer denied its claim, stating that the computer fraud clause of the crime coverage required actual hacking into and manipulation of Medidata’s computer system. But the court sided with Medidata, ruling that the spoofing of emails violated the integrity of the insured’s computer system enough to trigger coverage, and actual entry by hackers was not required by the policy language or by precedent.
We at Pillsbury hope you all had a very Happy Thanksgiving!
New York Court Reads Additional Insured Provision Broadly in Favor of Owner and Contractor
In a previous blog post, we addressed blanket additional insured endorsements, and the circumstances under which Company A could become an additional insured under Company B’s policy, even where Company B failed to add Company A to the policy. In that same vein, a New York trial court granted additional insured status to entities that did not even contract with the named insured, but were referenced in the named insured’s subcontract. Owners and General Contractors should take note of this decision, as it creates the potential for insured status even where there is a lack of contractual privity.
Risk Management 101: Tailor Your Construction Insurance Requirements to the Discipline so You Don’t Get Taken to the Cleaners
In the world of construction, whether you’re a lender, owner, contractor or subcontractor, your success hinges largely on risk management. While there’s no substitute for sound business and construction practices (such as proper preconstruction planning, proven construction means and methods, use of experienced personnel, and stringent safety programs), among the most important project risk allocation tools are the contracts governing the various parties’ rights and obligations. Within those contracts, risk is primarily allocated through indemnity and insurance requirement provisions. When preparing insurance requirements for construction-related contracts, it is crucial to ensure these pieces are well-fitted and comfortable, like a good piece of tailoring. This requires the indemnity and risk obligations associated with each project discipline to be clearly identiﬁed and addressed.
Developments in South Carolina: Harleysville Revisited
In two posts earlier this year—South Carolina May No Longer Hold Insurers’ Reservations and The Insurer’s Mixed-Coverage Burden—we told you about an important decision issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc. Those posts were written shortly after the court issued its original opinion on January 11, 2017. But on July 26, 2017, the court issued a new opinion replacing the original. So what has changed? Not much … and that’s a good thing for policyholders.
New York Court of Appeals Decision Undermines Additional Insured Coverage
We put lights on the front of trains so we can see them approaching in a tunnel. And we buy insurance for the accidents that occur despite such precautions. General contractors try to manage their project risks by taking precautions to avoid accidents, but they also require subcontractors to name them as “additional insureds” on their general liability or project-specific insurance should an accident happen. Suppose you’ve done that. An accident follows: Your subcontractor injures a person on the project site as a result of your own workers’ failure to warn. You’re covered, right? Better slow down.
The Time a Government Subcontractor Fell Off a Ladder … Right after Its Defense Base Act Insurance Lapsed
Imagine you are a prime contractor to a Department of the United States of America supplying logistical support for the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. As the prime, you are kicking on all cylinders, including purchasing comprehensive Employer’s Liability, Workers’ Compensation and Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance to cover your own employees against a worker injury claim abroad.
Then the phone rings.
A 30-year-old American worker hired by your subcontractor working on base encountered a swarm of bees while painting; he fell and was crippled. The sub isn’t paying his medical expenses and is apparently nowhere to be found. The injured employee’s bulldog lawyer is on the line threatening to sue your company directly for his client’s devastating injuries.
How can this be?
DBA coverage is workers’ compensation insurance that employers may turn to in the event that an employee is injured while working on a contract financed by the U.S. Government and performed outside the United States. Section 5(a) of the Act provides that “a contractor shall be deemed the employer of a subcontractor’s employees if the subcontractor fails to secure the payment of compensation.”
Colorado Court Enforces Statute that Presumes Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an Occurrence
Is damage resulting from faulty workmanship covered under your CGL policy? In the past, insurers have had success in certain jurisdictions arguing that construction defect cases did not constitute a covered “occurrence” because the damage was purportedly not unintended or unexpected. In recent years, however, courts have shifted course; the majority of courts have found that property damage arising out of faulty workmanship constitutes an “occurrence” under standard-form CGL policies. Additionally, some states enacted legislation requiring CGL policies to define occurrence to include property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship, or have made it easier for insureds to obtain coverage for damages as a result of work the insureds performed.
“ERAL” or Early? It’s Not a Decision the Insured Must Make
Construction projects—especially those of any complexity—often experience unexpected delays, resulting in loss of use to the owner. Owners sometimes insure against this risk by getting “Soft Cost” coverage, which covers certain cost increases resulting from project delay (think higher finance costs). Typically, though, when a construction project experiences an unanticipated delay, everyone—the owner, the builder, the subcontractors and suppliers—is interested in getting the project back on schedule. So owners sometime also get “Expense to Reduce the Amount of Loss” (ERAL) coverage, which covers the cost of accelerating the project to get it back on schedule (think higher costs for additional construction crews and overtime). But if you have both “Soft Cost” and ERAL coverage, do they cancel each other out?
The Insurer’s Mixed-Coverage Burden: In for a Dime … Maybe In for a Dollar?
A few weeks back, we told you how South Carolina May No Longer Hold Insurers’ Reservations. In that post we left you with a teaser: “There’s more to this case.”
In fact, Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc. does more than just take insurers to task with regard to their vague reservations of rights. Reaffirming that, in a case involving both covered and excluded losses, the insurer bears the burden of proving which damages are excluded from coverage, Harleysville shows how easily an insurer can find itself in a bind when trying to prove “no coverage” at the same time and in the same proceedings that it is providing a defense for its insured.