SPECIFIED OR DESIGNATED OPERATIONS ENDORSEMENT – LIMITATION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE

Posted on June 16, 2024June 16, 2024 by David Adelstein

Your commercial general liability (CGL) policy may contain a specified or designated operations endorsement. This does not operate as an exclusion but as a LIMITATION of coverage. The endorsement may provide that bodily injury or property damage ONLY applies to the operations or business described therein. Similarly, there may be a limitation of coverage for designated classifications or codes which has the same effect—limiting coverage to the classifications/codes listed therein. This is an important consideration, and you need to understand and watch out for such limitations of coverage. (These aren’t the only ones, but it’s important to appreciate that limitations of coverage operate to limit the coverage to which the CGL policy applies.)

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal dealt with this exact issue under Alabama law (although the same analysis would apply in numerous jurisdictions). In this case, a landscaper (the insured) had a CGL policy with a specified operations endorsement that limited coverage to landscaping operations. The landscaper was hired to install an in-ground trampoline in addition to site and landscaping operations at a house. A person got hurt using the trampoline and the landscaper was sued. The CGL insurer denied coverage outright (and, thus, any duty to defend) because the complaint asserted that the injury occurred from the landscaper’s assembly and installation of the trampoline, which was not a landscaping operation. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the landscaper’s insurance application specified that the landscaper did not perform any recreational or playground equipment erection or construction, and the installation and assembly of a trampoline would constitute recreational or playground equipment.

Here’s the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on this limitation of coverage:

While the distinction between limits to coverage and exclusions from coverage may be murky in some cases, the policy here makes clear that the Specified Operations provision is a limit — not an exclusion.

To begin with, the Policy’s “Schedule of Forms and Endorsements” describes 27 different “exclusions” — and “Specified Operations” is not one of them. “Specified Operations” is instead described as a “Limitation of Coverage.”

But we need not rest on the policy’s description of the Specified Operations provision, because the operation of the policy confirms its status. Commercial general liability policies generally “give[ ] coverage through the general coverage provision, and ‘take[ ] away‘ coverage through the various exclusions.” Recall, the general coverage provision provides that

[United] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies. [United] will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, [United] will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance does not apply.

By those terms, the policy sets out an (albeit not-totally-fleshed-out) limit to coverage. However, this initial explanation does not provide the full scope of coverage because it very broadly tells us only that the insurer will pay damages “to which this insurance applies” but not for any suit “to which this insurance does not apply.” From there, the Specified Operations provision fills in the details by adding, to that same section, the following:

1. 1. 1. This insurance applies to “bodily injury” and “property damage” only if:

(4) The “bodily injury” or “property damage” arises from one or more of the operations shown above; and [i]f also scheduled above[.]”

What “operations are shown” and “scheduled above”? The policy states simply that “[the] Insured performs landscaping.” In short, the Specified Operations provision (fitting into the gap left by the general coverage provision) describes the contours or boundaries of coverage — it does not purport to take away coverage already granted.

Thus, the Specified Operations provision is a limitation of coverage — not an exclusion….

***

The parties expend significant energy parsing the words of the policy, including whether the site work necessary to install the trampoline was “landscaping” and whether the trampoline injury “arises from” that work. We conclude we need not resolve those issues here. Even taking the term “landscaping” as ambiguous, construing it in [landscaper’s] favor, and applying Alabama law’s broad understanding of the causal term “arises out of,” Snell’s claim still fails. As the district court explained, under Alabama law, “[e]very insurance contract shall be construed . . . as . . . modified by any . . . application which is a part of the policy.” And the district court’s analysis of [landscaper’s] application under that statute was correct:

[Landscaper] was asked in the application whether his work included “any recreational or playground equipment construction or erection” and Snell answered “No.” It is undisputed that the trampoline is “recreational equipment.” If [landscaper] had answered “Yes” to that question or if he had informed United Specialty at some time later that his operations were going to include structural work for recreational equipment and the installation of recreational equipment, then United Specialty could have added that coverage and made any appropriate adjustments to [landscaper’s] rate.

Accordingly, the information [landscaper] provided in his insurance application conclusively shows he is not entitled to coverage.

***

Taking the application as part of the policy itself, we agree with the district court that [landscaper] expressly disclaimed doing any of the sort of work he did here — including the site work necessary to install the trampoline that he now claims is “landscaping” out of which the underlying injury “arises.”

In sum, the district court correctly held that [landscaper’s] insurance application — which Alabama law requires us to consider part of the policy — expressly disclaims the work he did here. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on [landscaper’s] duty-to-defend claim against United.

Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 30 Fla.L.Weekly C1008a (11^th Cir. 2024) (internal citations omitted).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

HOW YOU PLEAD ALLEGATIONS TO TRIGGER LIABILITY INSURER’S DUTIES IS CRITICAL

Posted on October 10, 2021October 10, 2021 by Edward Garber

How you plead allegations in your lawsuit to trigger duties of a liability insurance carrier is a critical consideration. If the complaint is not pled appropriately, it can result in the carrier NOT owing a duty to defend its insured, which is the party(ies) you are suing. If there is no duty to defend, there will be no duty to indemnify the insured to cover your damages. For this reason, in a number of circumstances, this is NOT what you want because you want to trigger insurance coverage and potential proceeds to be paid by a carrier to cover your damages. There are times when you are confronted with a case that just is not a good insurance coverage case. This may result in you coming up with creative arguments to maximize insurance coverage. Even in these times, you want to plead the complaint to best maximize coverage under the creative arguments you have developed.

An example of not pleading allegations in a complaint to trigger an insurer’s duties can be found in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Tricon Development of Brevard, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Co., 2021 WL 4129373 (11^th Cir. 2021). This case involved a general contractor constructing condominiums. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings. The subcontractor had a commercial general liability (CGL) policy that named the general contractor as an additional insured with respect to liability for property damage “caused in whole or in part” by the subcontractor’s direct or vicarious acts or omissions. (This is a good additional insured endorsement.)

A dispute arose as to defective work by the subcontractor in fabricating and installing the railings. The general contractor, therefore, engaged another subcontractor to fabricate new railings and remove the current railing to install the new ones. The general contractor submitted a claim to its original railing subcontractor’s insurer. The insurer denied the claim and the general contractor filed a coverage action against the insurer as an additional insured under the CGL policy.

The problem, however, is that the general contractor’s complaint did not appear to truly consider insurance coverage, although it appeared to be a case where insurance coverage was not a great option. The Eleventh Circuit explained there was no coverage based on the allegations in the complaint:

Here, [the general contractor] alleges that the subcontractor’s railings were deficient due to having defects and damage, not being installed properly, and not satisfying the project’s specifications; it does not allege that the subcontractor’s faulty workmanship damaged otherwise non-defective components of the project…. Thus, the costs that [the general contractor] incurred in removing the subcontractor’s railings and the fabrication and installation of new railings do not constitute “property damage” under the policies….

Tricon Development of Brevard at *2.

This is obviously not what the general contractor wanted and had it pled allegations differently, the outcome may have turned out different. Although, the general contractor may have been faced with trying to come up with a creative argument recognizing it was not a great insurance coverage action.

Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit, finding there was no insurance coverage, includes a worthy paragraph when it comes to property damage in a construction defect/damage dispute so that parties recognize CGL policies do not cover defective workmanship. Take note of this discussion so that you can ensure allegations are pled to best maximize coverage:

The policies at issue in this appeal are post-1986 standard form commercial general liability policies with products-completed operations hazard coverage, which are governed by Florida law. We have held that such policies do not cover the costs of replacing defective products. In Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Auchter Company, we examined a post-1986 standard form commercial general liability policy with products-completed operations hazard coverage. That policy “define[d] ‘property damage’ as ‘physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property … or … loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.’ ” 673 F.3d 1294, 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). Applying Florida law, we held that “there is no coverage if there is no damage beyond the faulty workmanship, i.e., unless the faulty workmanship has damaged some otherwise nondefective component of the project.” Id. at 1306 (citing U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871, 889 (Fla. 2007)). We also held that “if a subcontractor is hired to install a project component and, by virtue of his faulty workmanship, installs a defective component, then the cost to repair and replace the defective component is not ‘property damage.’ ” Id. (citing Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Pozzi Window Co., 984 So.2d 1241, 1248 (Fla. 2008)). We further held that “nondefective and properly installed raw materials can constitute a defective project component when the contract specifications call for the use of different materials, yet the cost to reinstall the correct materials is not ‘property damage’—even though the remedy for such a nonconformity is to remove and replace that component of the project.” Id. (citing Pozzi, 984 So.2d at 1248).

Tricon Development of Brevard at *2.

ALLEGING PROPERTY DAMAGE IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LAWSUIT

Posted on August 22, 2020August 22, 2020 by Edward Garber

When there is a construction defect lawsuit, there is an insurance coverage issue or consideration. As I have said repeatedly in other articles, it is all about maximizing insurance coverage regardless of whether you are the plaintiff prosecuting the construction defect claim or the contractor(s) alleged to have committed the construction defect and property damage. It is about triggering first, the insurer’s duty to defend, and second, the insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for the property damage.

The construction defect claim and lawsuit begins with how the claim and, then, lawsuit is couched knowing that the duty to defend is triggered by allegations in the lawsuit (complaint). Thus, preparing the lawsuit (complaint) is vital to maximize the insurer’s duty to defend its insured.

In a recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit, Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 WL 4345199 (11^th Cir. 2020), a general contractor was sued for construction defects in the construction of a custom home. A dispute arose pre-completion and the owner hired another contractor to complete the house and remediate construction defects. The contractor’s CGL insurer originally provided a defense to the general contractor but then withdrew the defense and filed an action for declaratory relief asking for the declaration that it had no duty to defend the contractor because the underlying lawsuit did NOT allege property damage. The trial court agreed with the contractor and granted summary judgment in its favor finding that the underlying complaint did not allege property damage beyond defective work. But, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed.

Among other allegations, the owner’s underlying complaint against the contractor asserted that the contractor committed defects through chipped pavers in the driveways and walkways, inconsistent paint finish, marks on ceilings, damage to exterior doors, damage to the top stair tread, damage to hardwood floors, metal roof dents, scratches in granite, holes in ceilings, etc. The owner sought its costs to repair and remediate the defects and damage from the contractor. In looking at whether the contractor’s CGL insurer had a duty to defend the contractor–the insured–the Eleventh Circuit (focusing on precedent out of the Eleventh Circuit) stated:

The operative amended complaint alleged that [the contractor] used subcontractors for work on the residence and that the residence was “replete with construction defects” and various damage. It did not further allege which subcontractors performed which work or how the damage occurred. Given these ambiguities, the complaint’s allegations are broad enough to allow [the contractor] to prove that one subcontractor negligently damaged nondefective work performed by another subcontractor. If [the contractxor] could establish that at least some of the damage arose in this way, there would be “damage apart from the defective work itself” and therefore “property damage.”

***

For these reasons, we conclude that the underlying operative complaint can fairly be construed to allege “property damage” within the meaning of the CGL policy and Florida law. Accordingly, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to [the CLG insurer] on this basis.

MAC Contractors of Florida, 2020 WL at *4 (internal citations omitted).

KNOW THY INSURANCE COVERAGE

Posted on May 23, 2020May 24, 2020 by Edward Garber

If you are involved in construction, insurance is vital. There are too many risks and you want to make sure you have insurance to cover many of those risks. Commercial general liability insurance (CGL) is an insurance product most contractors maintain and need to maintain. However, not all policies are the same by virtue of the endorsements issued with the policies that restrict coverage. It is important that you know what coverage you have and that you are not working on projects where you have no coverage. That would be a mistake for both you and the party that hired you.

You may think you have coverage only to find out that you do not, which seems to be the case in South Winds Construction Corp. v., Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group, 2020 WL 2463778 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). In this case, a contractor was sued for water damage on the 6^ththrough 11^th floors caused to a condominium project. The contractor’s insurer denied coverage and, thus, its duty to defend the insured in the lawsuit, because the policy had an exclusion that precluded coverage for buildings and structures exceeding three stories. Essentially, this is a type of condominium exclusion where the policy does not apply to high-rise projects.

While an insurer’s duty to defend its insured in an underlying lawsuit is broader than its duty to indemnify its insured, here, the claim fell clearly and squarely within a policy exclusion. It was an easy coverage denial from the get-go. Southwinds Construction Corp., supra, at *1. (“This placed the claim squarely and unambiguously within the exclusion from coverage applicable to work in buildings above three stories in height.”)

It is possible the contractor was performing and had performed many condominium projects or projects exceeding three stories in height. All the while the contractor had no coverage as long as it was performing work with a policy that had this exclusion. Not only does this harm the contractor, but it also harms the owner that was relying on insurance coverage in the event of property damage caused by the contractor. This does not mean the contractor is not liable. It just means it has no insurance coverage!

LIABILITY INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND INSURED IS BROADER THAN ITS DUTY TO INDEMNIFY

Posted on May 3, 2019April 24, 2020 by Edward Garber

When it comes to liability insurance, an insurer’s duty to defend its insured from a third-party claim is much broader than its duty to indemnify. This broad duty to defend an insured is very important and, as an insured, you need to know this. “A liability insurer’s obligation, with respect to its duty to defend, is not determined by the insured’s actual liability but rather by whether the alleged basis of the action against the insurer falls within the policy’s coverage.” Advanced Systems, Inc. v. Gotham Ins. Co., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D996b (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (internal quotation omitted). This means:

Even where the complaint alleges facts partially within and partially outside the coverage of a policy, the insurer is nonetheless obligated to defend the entire suit, even if the facts later demonstrate that no coverage actually exists. And, the insurer must defend even if the allegations in the complaint are factually incorrect or meritless. As such, an insurer is obligated to defend a claim even if it is uncertain whether coverage exists under the policy. Furthermore, once a court finds that there is a duty to defend, the duty will continue even though it is ultimately determined that the alleged cause of action is groundless and no liability is found within the policy provisions defining coverage.

Advanced Systems, supra(internal citations and quotations omitted).

In Advanced Systems, an insurer refused to defend its insured, a fire protection subcontractor. The subcontractor had been third-partied into a construction defect lawsuit because the foam fire suppression system it installed had a failure resulting in the premature discharge of foam. The owner sued the general contractor and the general contractor third-partied in the subcontractor. However, the subcontractor’s CGL carrier refused its duty to defend the subcontractor from the third-party complaint because of the pollution exclusion in the CGL policy. In other words, the insurer claimed that the foam the subcontractor installed constituted a pollutant within the meaning of the exclusion and, therefore, resulted in no coverage and, thus, no duty to defend the insured in the action.

To determine the foam was a “pollutant”–which the policy defined as any “solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste”—the insurer relied on extrinsic evidence, specifically the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS Sheet) for the foam. The insured objected to the insurer’s reliance on extrinsic evidence since it was beyond the scope of the insurer’s duty to defend which should be based on the allegations in the underlying complaint. (The insurer tried to support its reliance on extrinsic evidence under a very limited exception that supports the reliance on extrinsic facts to form the refusal to defend when the extrinsic facts are uncontroverted and manifestly obvious, not normally alleged in the complaint, and that place the claim outside of coverage. However, this is a very narrow exception that the court was not going to apply here.)

It is important to consult with counsel if you have an issue with your insurer refusing to defend you in an underlying action and/or your insurer denies coverage.

CGL POLICY COVERING ATTORNEY’S FEES IN PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIMS

Posted on November 17, 2018April 24, 2020 by Edward Garber

Does a CGL policy cover attorney’s fees and costs in property damages claims, to the extent there is a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorney’s fees? Naturally, you need to review the policies and this is not a clear-cut issue, but there is law to argue under.

A case I have argued in support of CGL policies providing for coverage for attorney’s fees as a component of property damage claims when there is a contractual or statutory basis is Assurance Co. of America v. Lucas Waterproofing Co., Inc., 581 F.Supp.2d 1201 (S.D.Fla. 2008). In this case, the following applied:

-The policy provided coverage for “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages of… ‘property damage’….

– Property damage was defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.”

-The term damage, in of itself, was not defined in the policy.

The trial court looked at whether attorneys’ fees and costs are damages arising because of ‘property damage’ to which the insurance policy at issue applies.

If an insurer may defend against a claim that is covered by the policy without taking into account potential attorneys’ fees and costs that will be awarded if the opposing party prevails, the insurer creates an externality whereby, in the course of seeking to minimize its own liability, it imposes potential costs on the insured at no additional cost to itself. This externality undermines the very reason why an insurer can at once possess a duty and a right to defend, which is that the interests of the insured and the insurer are presumed to be aligned with respect to a claim for damages covered by the policy. Every dollar of liability for a covered claim for which the insured cannot be held liable is a dollar saved by the insurance company. If, however, when defending against a claim that is covered by the policy, an insurer can increase the liability of the insured while simultaneously decreasing its own liability, the interests of the insurer and insured are no longer aligned, giving rise to a conflict between the insurer and insured and making the coexistence of the right and duty to defend untenable.

***

Therefore, this Court finds that attorneys’ fees and costs that an insured becomes obligated to pay because of a contractual or statutory provision, which are attributable to an insurer’s duty to defend the insured against claims that would be covered by the policy if the claimant prevails, constitute damages because of ‘property damage” within the meaning of a CGL policy.

Assurance Co. of America, 581 F.Supp.2d at 1214-15.

In July of 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in Association of Apartment Owners of Moorings, Inc. v. Dongbu Insurance Co., Ltd., 731 Fed.Appx. 713 (9^thCir. 2018). The issue on appeal was whether the liability insurer was required to indemnify its insured for attorneys’ fees its insured was ordered to pay against a third-party that prevailed on a water damage claim. Similar to above, the policy did not define the term “damage” and the Ninth Circuit explained:

The policy provides coverage for damages Moorings [insured] must pay “because of” covered property damage. This phrase, which is undefined, connotes a non-exacting causation requirement whereby any award of damages that flows from covered property damage is covered, unless otherwise excluded. The Bradens [third-party claimant] were awarded fees…because their home incurred water damage, and they incurred additional loss in order to recover for this damage. The fee award is thus properly considered an award of damages that Moorings must pay “because of” that covered property damage and is not otherwise excluded.

Association of Apartment Owners of Moorings, Inc., 731 Fed.Appx. at 714.

CONTRACTORS: CONSULT YOUR INSURANCE BROKER REGARDING YOUR CGL POLICY

Posted on February 10, 2018February 10, 2018 by Edward Garber

Contractors: do yourself a favor and consult your insurance broker regarding your commercial general liability (CGL) policy. Do this now, especially if you subcontract out work.

CGL policies contain a “your work” exclusion. The CGL policy is written such that it excludes “‘property damage’ to ‘your work’ arising out of it or any part of it and included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard.’” This exclusion will be raised in the post-completion latent construction defect scenario. (There are other exclusions that will be raised to a defect discovered during construction.) Certain policies will contain a subcontractor exception to this “your work” exclusion. You WANT this exception- no doubt about it so that this exclusion does not apply to work performed by your subcontractors. Without this subcontractor exception, truth be told, this “your work” exclusion is a total back-breaker to contractors. It will give your insurer an immediate out for many latent defect property scenarios since excluded from coverage is property damage to your work including work performed by your subcontractors.

In a recent opinion, Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. JWN Construction, Inc., 2018 WL 783102 (S.D.Fla. 2018), an owner discovered water intrusion and damage at his property. He sued the general contractor and the general contractor’s insurer filed a separate action for declaratory relief claiming it had NO duty to defend or indemnify its insured—the general contractor—in the underlying suit. The court agreed because the contractor did not have the subcontractor exception to the “your work” exclusion.

If work was performed by JWN [contractor] or on JWN’s behalf-here by a subcontractor-then the “your work” exclusion applies. Historically, insurers could be liable under commercial general liabilities policies resembling the policy in the instant case for certain types of damages caused by subcontractors….Nonetheless, insurers do possess the right to define their coverage as excluding damages arising out of a subcontractor’s defective work by eliminating subcontractor’s exceptions from the policy. An insurer is only liable for a subcontractor’s defective work when the “your work” exclusion does not eliminate coverage for work performed by a subcontractor….In conclusion, the insurance policy in this case excluded coverage for work performed not only by JWN, but also by JWN’s subcontractors.

JWN Construction, Inc., supra, at *4.

This ruling meant that the general contractor’s CGL insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured—again, the contractor—for the defects or resulting water damage. A total killer illustrating the absolute importance of the subcontractor exception to the “your work” exclusion in your CGL policy.

CGL INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND INSURED DURING PRE-SUIT 558 PROCESS: MAYBE?

Posted on December 14, 2017December 14, 2017 by Edward Garber

In earlier postings, I discussed the issue of whether Florida Statutes Chapter 558’s pre-suit construction defects process triggers a CGL insurer’s duty to defend. The issue was whether Florida’s 558 pre-suit notice of a construction defect and repair process met the definition of “suit” within a standard CGL policy.

A standard CGL policy defines the term “suit” as:

“Suit” means a civil proceeding in which damages because of “bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance applies are alleged. “Suit” includes:

a. An arbitration proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured must submit or does submit with our consent; or

b. Any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent.

The Florida Supreme Court in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 42 Fla. L. Weekly S960b (2017) held that Florida’s 558 process is an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding” within the definition of suit in a CGL policy. However, since it falls within an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding,” the insurer’s consent is required to invoke its duty to defend its insured during this pre-suit process. This is especially true since a recipient’s participation in the pre-suit 558 process is voluntary and not mandatory and this process does not produce any binding results.

Accordingly, an insured-contractor or subcontractor that receives a 558 notice of a construction defect should absolutely tender the notice to its CGL insurer. No doubt about it. In doing so, the insured should inquire and perhaps encourage the insurer to participate in the process and defend the insured’s interests. If the insurer is not willing to participate in this process, this does not mean the insured should refuse too. Rather, the insured simply needs to recognize that it will be responsible for its own fees and costs in doing so. The insurer’s consent is required to invoke its duty to defend the insured during this process.

This opinion, unfortunately, doesn’t provide a whole lot of value (in my opinion) because if an insurer does not consent to participating in the process and defending its insured, it puts the insured in a position where it may be better off being sued where the insurer will now defend it and engage the consultants to investigate the claimed defects. Many insurers, however, will capitalize on the 558 process by providing a defense to its insured as opposed to simply waiting for the inevitable construction defect lawsuit.

ADDITIONAL INSURED OBLIGATIONS AND THE UNDERLYING LAWSUIT

Posted on October 2, 2016November 8, 2024 by Edward Garber

As a general contractor, you understand the importance of being named an additional insured under your subcontractors’ commercial general liability (CGL) policies. Not only do you want your subcontract to express that a subcontractor’s CGL policy is primary and noncontributory to your policy, but you want it to express that the subcontractor must identify you as an additional insured for ongoing and completed operations. Even with this language, you want the subcontractor to provide you with their additional insured endorsement and, preferably, a primary and noncontributory endorsement. These additional insured obligations are important to any general contractor that has been sued in a construction defect / property damage lawsuit.

In the recent decision in Core Construction Services Southeast, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Ins. Co., 2016 WL 5403578 (11^th Cir. 2016), a general contractor built a residential development. The general contractor required its roofing subcontractor to identify it as an additional insured under the roofer’s CGL policy. The general contractor was sued with the lawsuit asserting that the roofs were installed incorrectly. The general contractor tendered the defense of the claim to the roofer’s CGL insurer and the insurer refused to provide the defense because there was no “property damage” within the definition of the CGL policy (“physical injury to tangible property…”). The general contractor then filed a lawsuit against the subcontractor’s insurer arguing that the insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify it since the general contractor was an additional insured under the subcontractor’s CGL policy. The trial court, and as affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, held that the insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnity the general contractor because there was NO asserted property damage within the meaning of the policy. If there was no property damage then there was no obligation for the roofing subcontractor’s insurer to defend the general contractor as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s CGL policy.

The underlying lawsuit only claimed that the roofs had been damaged but did NOT claim that the defective roofs had caused damage to other property (other components of the building). The omission of this assertion was important because the complaint was not pled to trigger insurance duties, such as additional insured obligations, since the cost to repair or replace the damaged roof would not be covered by the subcontractor’s CGL insurer. Rather, costs to replace or repair damage caused by the subcontractor’s defective roofing installation would be covered; however, such damage was not pled in the underlying complaint. Remember, the insurer’s duty to defend is only triggered based on allegations in the underlying complaint so without such allegations, there is no duty.

CONSTRUCTION DEFECT INDEMNITY OBLIGATIONS – COVERED VS. NON-COVERED CGL CLAIMS

Posted on August 28, 2016August 28, 2016 by Edward Garber

If you are a contractor or subcontractor and a construction defect claim is asserted against you, then you have tendered such claim to your commercial general liability (CGL) insurer. No doubt about it. In doing so, you have wondered whether your CGL insurer will indemnify you for the damages asserted against you by the third-party. You have wondered whether the damages asserted against you are covered by your CGL policy. If you have not wondered and asked these questions, then you should! Below is a portion of a presentation I recently put on regarding construction defect indemnity obligations under CGL policies and, particularly, covered claims versus non-covered claims.

[gview file=”https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FINAL-Covered-vs-Not-Covered-Power-Point.pdf”]