A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
The court grappled with whether defendants named in the underlying case were "additional insureds" under the policy. Colony Ins. Co. v. Price, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38952 (N.D. Texas March 21, 2013).
Colony insured Tommy Sinclair under a CGL policy. Sinclair operated a nightclub. A patron was assaulted outside the club and…
The federal district court predicted that the Utah Supreme Court would find that damage to property other than the insured's work product is unexpected and arises from an occurrence. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. AMSCO Windows, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15999 (D. Utah Feb. 5, 2013).
The insured, AMSCO Windows, installed windows in new…
The federal district court predicted the Missouri state courts would not exclude coverage for damages caused by a concrete sealant, TIAH. United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan Contractors Serv., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10716 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2013).
The insured was a construction clean up company. It supplied day labor and…
In a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013).
The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground.
Unable to discern the meaning of a provision stating that payment of damages would be made "through a trial but not any appeal", the court found an ambiguity. Parker v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9085 (D. Ore. Jan. 23, 2013).
The homeowners sued the general contractor for defective…
Methodically analyzing the damage claims, the federal district court largely denied the insurers' motions for summary judgment for coverage of construction defect claims. Big-D Constr. Corp. v. Take It for Granite Too, 2013 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 8377 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2013).
Big-D was the general contractor for a remodeling project of International…
The Washington Supreme Court held that the arbitration provision in James Rivers' policy was unenforceable. State of Washington, Department of Transportation v. James River Ins. Co., 2013 Wash. LEXIS 66 (Wash. Jan. 17, 2013).
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) was an additional insured on a policy issued by James River.
Whether construction defect claims against an insured contractor or subcontractor are covered is undergoing an intense debate in Colorado that is reminiscent of the current coverage battle in Hawaii.
Although I missed the case until recently, the decision in Colo. Pool Sys. v. Scottsdale Ins Co., 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 1732 (Colo. Ct.
Further demonstrating a difference of opinion between federal district court and state court trial judges, Judge Mollway denied a motion to certify a proposed question to the Hawaii Supreme Court regarding coverage for construction defects. Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Nordic PLC Constr., Inc., Civil No. 11-00515 SOM/KSC (Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to…
The court considered the shifting burdens of proof regarding the liability policy's exclusions and exceptions to the exclusions. Ment Bros. Iron Works Co. Inc. v. Interstate Fire Cas. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25310 (2nd Cir. Dec. 11, 2102).
The building owner and developer hired a general contractor, who hired the insured…
