Construction Defects

Subscribe to Construction Defects via RSS

    Distinguishing its seminal case on coverage for construction defects, Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233 (1979), the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that rain damage to the building caused by a subcontractor's faulty workmanship constituted "property damage" and an "occurrence" under the property developer's CGL policy. Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n v.Towers…

    The federal magistrate predicted that the Oregon appellate courts would not adopt the owner-claimant rule, restricting recovery under the policy to the time period during which the insured owned the property. Am. States Ins. Co. v. PIH Beaverton LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83188 (D. Or. May 3, 2016).

    PIH purchased a hotel in…

    The Hawaii federal district court confirmed its prior holdings that there is no duty to defend or indemnify for property damage caused by faulty workmanship. State Farm Fire & Cas Co. v. GP West, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74240 (D. Haw. Jun 7, 2016). (Full disclosure – our office represents GP West in…

    The Iowa Supreme Court held that property damage caused by a subcontractor's defective work was an "occurrence." Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Invs., LLC, 880 N.W. 2d 724 (Iowa 2016). 

    In 2002, the insureds, the developers and general contractor, began construction on an apartment complex. While the complex was still…

   Considering certified questions from the federal district court, the Arkansas Supreme Court followed a prior decision in deciding there was no coverage for property loss caused by faulty workmanship based solely on breach of contract. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc. v. Cenark Project Mgt. Services, Inc., 2016 Ark. LEXIS 185 (Ark. April 28, 2016).

  …

   Applying Illinois law, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for the insured's settlement of claims based upon breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro North Condo. Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43452 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2016).

   Metro North sued…

  Reliance on the policy's "other insurance" provision did not excuse the insurer from contributing to the defense of a common insured. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 Ca. App. LEXIS 275 (Cal. Ct. App. April 11, 2016).

   Lloyds and Arch were both primary insurers of Framecon, Inc. Lloyds…

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed that the insurer had no coverage obligations for bodily injury occurring after the policy had been canceled. Hoesen v. Lloyd's of London, 2016 R.I. LEXIS 41 (R.I. March 24, 2016).

    The plaintiff, Mark Van Hoesen, was seriously injured on July 23, 2012, when he fell…

   The court denied the insurer's and the contractor's cross motions for summary judgment. Core Construction Servs. Southeast v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11487 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2016). 

   Core Construction was the general contractor for the Artisan Club Condominium Community project. Core Construction hired a subcontractor…