A commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond
The Illinois Appellate Court determined the general contractor was not covered for construction defects despite allegations of damage to personal property. Wesfield Ins. Co. v. West Van Buren, LLC, 59 N.E. 2d 877, (Ill. Ct. App. 2016).
The developer constructed a condominium development in Chicago. The installation of the roof was…
The Eleventh Circuit found there was no duty to defend the contractor additional insured for the costs of repairing and replacing roofing installed incorrectly by the subcontractor insured. Core Constr. Servs. Southeast v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17575 (11th Cir. Sept 28, 2016).
After the condominium project was completed…
Interpreting Florida law, the United States District Court found there was no duty to defend a contractor against construction defect claims. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Dimmucci Dev. Corp. of Ponce Inlet, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678 (M.D. Fla. Sept 13, 2016).
The insured built condominiums and townhomes. It held three successive CGL policies…
The insurer prevailed on summary judgment establishing it had no duty to defend the insured roofing contractor for damage caused by tar escaping from a roof. Mesa Underwriters Spec. Ins. Co. v. Myers, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108444 (W.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016).
Myers contracted to do roofing work for Sireco III LLC. Myers…
The federal district court found no coverage for the insured developer after water intruded into the homeowners' basements. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cleland Homes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108030 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2016).
The underlying complaint alleged that the subdivision was designed to create a run off…
The Nebraska court found there was no coverage for rebar that did not meet specifications and did not cause property damage to other portions of the construction project. Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2016 Neb. LEXIS 116 (Neb. Aug. 5, 2016).
The general contractor was hired by the city to build…
The federal district court found that under New York law, the insurer had a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage to property other than the insured's work product was possible. Am.Home Assur. Co. v. Allan Window Techs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101118 (S.D. N. Y. Aug 2, 2016).
…
In a sensitive opinion incorporating several redactions, apparently due to national security issues, the court found that the business risk exclusions raised by the insurer did not apply in determining whether there was a duty to defend. Innovative Mold Solutions v. All Am. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91671 (D. Mass. July 12, 2016).…
I am invited to speak before the Honolulu Association of Insurance Professionals at the monthly meeting September 13, 2016. The topic will be "Coverage for Construction Defects – Hawaii Departs from the Emerging Trend."
The meeting will be at the Island Insurance Meeting Hall, 1022 Bethel St., Honolulu. All are invited, but please RSVP to pr@haipro.org.
Bound by well-established case law in Pennsylvania, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for alleged faulty workmanship. Peerless Ins. Co. & Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. v. Manown Builders, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85261 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2016).
Manown was sued by the homeowners after they noticed in…
