Construction Defect Insurance Claims Best Practices for - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Construction Defect Insurance Claims

Best Practices for Policyholders and Insurers to Resolve Coverage Disputes Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

• speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2013

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

James P . Bobotek, Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Washington, D.C. Ruth S. Kochenderfer, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, D.C.

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-927-5568 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

• Click the SEND button beside the box

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the + sign next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

Construction Defect Insurance Claims

Ruth S. Kochenderfer – Steptoe & Johnson LLP James P. Bobotek – Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

6

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

INSURANCE IN A TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CASE

1 Occupant Owner/Developer Contractor Design Professionals Insurance Building Product Manufacturers Insurance Material Suppliers Insurance Insurance Insurance Insurance Subcontractors Insurance

7

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Occurrence

"Occurrence" means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.

8

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Occurrence

Major issue in construction defect cases – is faulty workmanship an

• ccurrence?

9

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

IT IS!

 Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., No. SC 18886, 2013 Conn. Lexis 187 (Conn. June 11, 2013).  I.J. White Corp. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 964 N.Y.S.2d 21 (N.Y. App.

• Div. 2013).

 K & L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 829 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2013).  Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools, Inc., 710 F.3d 488 (2d Cir. 2013).  Crossmann Communities of N.C., Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.,

• No. 26909, 2011 WL 3667598 (S.C. Aug. 22, 2011).

 Greystone Const., Inc. v. Nat’l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011).  Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hathaway Dev. Co., Inc., 707 S.E.2d 369 (Ga. 2011).  Sheehan Const. Co., Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 935 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 2010).

10

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

IT IS!

 Architex Assoc., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 27 So. 2d 1148 (Miss. 2010).  Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 595 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2010).

 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pella Corp., 631 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (S.D. Iowa 2009).

 Stanley Martin Cos., Inc. v. Ohio Cas. Group, 313 Fed. App'x 609 (4th Cir. 2009).

 Martco Ltd. P'ship v. Wellons, Inc., 588 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2009).

 Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 279 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009).

 Acadia Ins. Co. v. Peerless Ins. Co., 679 F. Supp.2d 229 (D.

• Mass. 2010).

11

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

IT IS NOT!

 Shane Traylor Cabinetmaker, L.L.C. v. Am. Resources Ins. Co., Inc., No. 1110418, 2013 Ala. Lexis 42 (Ala. May 3, 2013).  Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. R.M. Shoemaker Co., No. 12-2268, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6093 (3d Cir. March 27, 2013).  Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 306 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2011).  Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 231 P.3d 67 (Haw.

• Ct. App. 2010).

 CMK Dev. Corp. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 917 N.E.2d 1155 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).

 W.C. Stewart Constr., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 770 N.W.2d 850 (Iowa App. 2009).

12

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

IT IS NOT!

 Friel Luxury Home Constr., Inc. v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co. RRG, 2009 WL 5227893 (D. Mass. Dec. 22, 2009).  Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. James Gilligan Builders, 2009 WL 1704474 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2009).  Brake Landscaping & Lawncare, Inc. v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 2009 WL 4725293 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2009).  Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Parkshore Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 1737032 (D.N.J. June 17, 2009).

13

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Legislative Attempts

 South Carolina - S.C. Code Ann. § 38-61-70 (2011) - CGL policies that insure a “construction professional” for liability arising from “construction related work . . . shall contain or be deemed to contain an “occurrence” definition that includes: (1) an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions; and (2) property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship, exclusive of the faulty workmanship itself.”  Colorado - Revised Stat. § 13-200-808 (2010) defines the term “accident” in a CGL policy to clarify that construction defects are covered losses unless the damage is intended and expected.

14

Legislative Attempts

 Hawaii - H.R.S. § 431:1-217 - For purposes of a liability insurance policy that covers occurrences of damage or injury during the policy period and that insures a construction professional for liability arising from construction-related work, the meaning of the term “occurrence” shall be construed in accordance with the law as it existed at the time that the insurance policy was issued.  Arkansas - A.C.A. §23-79-155 (2011) - A commercial general liability insurance policy offered for sale in this state shall contain a definition of “occurrence” that includes: (1) accidents, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions; and (2) property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship.

15

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

MAYBE?

TEXAS – It is?

• Gilbert Texas Construction LP v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s

London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010).

• Contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach
• f contract claim.
• Lamar Homes v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1

(Tex. 2007).

• Breach of contract claim may involve an occurrence

and coverage does not turn on the label of the cause of action.

16

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Coverage A - Insuring Agreement

We 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.

ISO Form CG 00 01 12 07

17

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

The “Insured”

 Who is “the insured”?

• Named Insured – Declarations Page
• Insured (Who Is An Insured section)
• employees, officers, directors (acting in scope of

employment)

• real estate managers
• newly formed/acquired organizations (grace period)
• Additional insureds

18

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

“Bodily Injury”

Means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including death resulting from any of these at any time.

19

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

“Property Damage”

• a. Physical injury to tangible property, including all

resulting loss of use of that property. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the physical injury that caused it; or

• b. Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically
• injured. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at

the time of the "occurrence" that caused it.

20

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Trigger “This insurance applies to . . . ‘property damage’ only if: . . . the . . . ‘property damage’ occurs during the policy period.”

21

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Trigger

Exposure Manifestation Injury-in-fact Continuous

22

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Trigger

 The Incorporation Doctrine: whether the incorporation of a defective product or work into the product or work of another constitutes “property damage”  Eljer Mfg. Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 972 F.2d 805, 810 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. den., 507 U.S. 1005 (1993).  Travelers Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Eljer Mfg., Inc., 757 N.E.2d 481, 502 (Ill. 2001)  Esicorp v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 266 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2001) (applying Missouri law)

23

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Myths?

A CGL policy distinguishes between:  Negligence and breach of contract;  Property damage and economic loss.

24

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

EXCLUSIONS

25

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion b. - Contractual Liability

This insurance does not apply to:

• b. Contractual Liability

"Bodily injury" or "property damage" for which the insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.

26

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exception to the Contractual Liability Exclusion

This exclusion does not apply to liability for damages: (1) That the insured would have in the absence of the contract or agreement; or (2) Assumed in a contract or agreement that is an "insured contract", provided the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreement . . .

27

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Definition of “Insured Contract”

"Insured contract" means: * * * *

• c. Any easement or license agreement, except in connection

with construction or demolition operations on or within 50 feet

• f a railroad;

* * * *

• e. An elevator maintenance agreement;

28

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Definition of “Insured Contract”

"Insured contract" means:

• f. That part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your

business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for "bodily injury" or "property damage" to a third person or organization. Tort liability means a liability that would be imposed by law in the absence of any contract or agreement.

29

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Definition of “Insured Contract”

Paragraph f. does not include that part of any contract or agreement: * * * * (2) That indemnifies an architect, engineer or surveyor for injury

• r damage . . .

(3) Under which the insured, if an architect, engineer or surveyor, assumes liability for an injury or damage arising out of the insured's rendering or failure to render professional services . . .

30

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion b. - Contractual Liability

 Includes warranty claims.  Is the insured “legally obligated to pay” breach of contract damages, or does this language limit coverage to tort claims?  “[T]here is nothing in the basic coverage language of the current CGL policy to support any definitive tort/contract line of demarcation for purposes of determining whether a loss is covered by the CGL's initial grant of coverage. ‘Occurrence’ is not defined by reference to the legal category of the claim. The term ‘tort’ does not appear in the CGL policy.” Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 673 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 2004).

31

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion b. - Contractual Liability

 Does “assumption” mean that the assumed liability must be that of another?

• YES. "'assumption' must be interpreted to add something

to the phrase 'assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.' Reading the phrase to apply to all liabilities sounding in contract renders the term 'assumption' superfluous.” Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 673 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 2004).

• NO. “exclusion's language applies without qualification to

liability assumed by contract.” Gilbert Texas Constr. LP v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 08-0246 (Tex. June 4, 2010).

32

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Breach of Contract Claims

 A purpose of contractual liability coverage is to cover the liability of third parties assumed by the insured in contractual agreements, particularly hold harmless or indemnification agreements.  In most cases, it does not provide coverage to an insured for its own liability arising out of its own breach of contract.  I.J. White Corp. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 964 N.Y.S.2d 21 (N.Y.

• App. Div. 2013) (rejecting insurer’s argument that there is no

coverage under a CGL policy for breach of contract actions).

33

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

“Business Risk” Exclusions

 j.1 - owned, rented, or occupied property  j.3 and 4 - care, custody and control  j.5 - operations  j.6 - faulty workmanship  m. - impaired property  l. - your work

34

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion j.1 - Owned, Rented, or Occupied Property Exclusion

This insurance does not apply to:

• j. Damage To Property

"Property damage" to: (1) Property you own, rent or occupy, ...

35

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion j.1 - Owned, Rented, or Occupied Property Exclusion

 Designed to exclude coverage for exposures that are typically insured through other types of policies, such as inland marine

• r fire policies.

 Because of the straightforward nature of the exclusion, it has not been the subject of much court interpretation, especially as applied in the defective work context.

36

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion j. 2 – Alienated Premises

• j. Damage To Property

"Property damage" to: (2) Premises you sell, give away or abandon, if the "property damage" arises out of any part of those premises; Paragraph (2) of this exclusion does not apply if the premises are "your work" and were never occupied, rented or held for rental by you.

37

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusions j.3 and 4 - Care, Custody, or Control

This insurance does not apply to:

• j. Damage To Property

"Property damage" to: (3) Property loaned to you; (4) Personal property in the care, custody or control of the insured; Paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6) of this exclusion do not apply to liability assumed under a sidetrack agreement.

38

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusions j.3 and 4 - Care, Custody, or Control

 Care, custody, or control exclusion is limited to personal property.  Maintenance contractors or specialty contractors who install equipment -- personal -- rather than real -- property.  The loaned property exclusion could be broadly applied to preclude coverage for damage to any tools or equipment borrowed by an insured contractor, whether or not the tools or equipment were being used at the time of the loss. For contractors who borrow tools or equipment from each other, this exclusion may be significant.

39

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusions j.3 and 4 Care, Custody,

• r Control

 National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitts., Pa. v. Structural Sys. Tech., Inc., 964 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1992).

• Rejected insurer’s contention that the care, custody, or

control exclusion applied to a radio tower that collapsed.

• Held that the tower constituted real property, and since the

care, custody, or control exclusion applied only to personal property, exclusion did not eliminate coverage.

40

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion j.5 - Damage to Property

This insurance does not apply to . . . "Property damage" to:

• j. (5) That particular part of real property on which you or any

contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the "property damage" arises out of those operations . . .

41

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion j.5 - Damage to Property

 “That particular part . . .”

• Expansive/indivisible - Copple Constr., L.L.C. v. Columbia Nat'l
• Ins. Co., 279 Neb. 60 (Neb. 2009);
• Restrictive/divisible - Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. JHP Dev., Inc.,

557 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. Tex. 2009).

 The named insured or its subcontractors must be performing

• perations on the real property, and the property damage

must arise out of those operations.  Does not apply to products/completed operations.

42

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion j.6 - Damage to Property

This insurance does not apply to . . . "Property damage" to:

• j. (6) That particular part of any property that must be restored,

repaired or replaced because "your work" was incorrectly performed on it. Paragraph (6) of this exclusion does not apply to "property damage" included in the "products-completed operations hazard".

43

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion j.6 - Damage to Property

 Damage does not have to occur while the insured is performing operations, as long as it occurs before the project is completed.

44

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion k. – Your Product

 Limited application in construction defect cases because “your product” is defined to exclude real property. Md. Cas. Co. v. Reeder, 221 Cal. App.3d 961 (1990). "Your product"

• a. Means:

(1) Any goods or products, other than real property, manufactured, sold, handled, distributed or disposed of by . . .

45

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion l. – Your Work

This insurance does not apply to . . . "Property damage" to:

• 1. "Property damage" to "your work" arising out of it or any part of

it and included in the "products-completed operations hazard." This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work

• ut of which the damage arises was performed on your

behalf by a subcontractor.

46

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion l. - Your Work

 Subcontractor exception is often key battleground.  Who is considered a subcontractor?

• A sub-subcontractor?
• A supplier?
• On-site/made for project specs.

47

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion l. - Your Work

 Policyholder tip:

• The exclusion demonstrates that property damage caused

to a construction project by the faulty work of a sub is an "occurrence" otherwise covered by the insurance policy.

 Carrier tips:

• There is no need to rely on an exclusion when there is no
• ccurrence or property damage in the first instance.
• Exceptions to exclusions are not coverage grants.

48

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Exclusion l. – Your Work

 May be no coverage for:

• Damage to the named insured’s work arising out of its work.

 May be coverage for:

• Property damage to work performed by the insured when the

damage results from the work of the insured’s subcontractor.

• Property damage to work performed by the insured’s

subcontractor when the damage results from that subcontractor’s work.

• Property damage to work performed by the insured’s

subcontractor when the damage results from work performed by the insured.

• Property damage to work performed by the insured’s

subcontractor when the damage results from the work of another contractor or subcontractor.

49

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Products-Completed Operations

 Separate sub-limits in a CGL policy  Failure to obtain and procure for additional insureds leads to many breach of contract claims.  Three-part test for coverage.

50

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Products-Completed Operations: 3-Part Test

 Must Occur Away from Your Premises.  Must arise out of “Your Product” or “Your Work,” terms defined in the CGL form.  Does not apply if the work has not yet been completed or abandoned.

51

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Products-Completed Operations

 The work is considered to be completed the earlier of:

• When all the named insured’s work as required in a contract has

been finished.

• When all the work at a job site has been completed if the named

insured’s contract requires work under the same contract but at another job site.

• When that part of the work done at a job has been put to its

intended use by someone other than another contractor or subcontractor working on the same project.

52

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Contractual Risk Transfer Issues

 Additional Insureds  Certificates of Insurance

53

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Additional Insureds

 Requires a separate endorsement to the basic CGL form - can be either specific or a blanket endorsement.  Terms of the endorsement must be reviewed.

• Coverage for the additional insured’s own negligence?
• Coverage for completed ops?
• Priority of coverage?

 One size does not fit all.

54

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Additional Insured – Who Pays the SIR?

 Forecast Homes, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co.,181 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

• "[I]t is a condition precedent to our liability that you [the

named insured Sub] make actual payment of all damages and defense costs for each occurrence or offense, until you [the named insured Sub] have paid" the full SIR amount.

• "Payments by others, including but not limited to additional

insureds or insurers, do not serve to satisfy the self- insured retention."

55

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Additional Insureds - Policy Endorsements

 CG 20 10 11 85

• Provides the additional insured with coverage for liability arising
• ut of the named insured’s work for the additional insured;
• Covers the additional insured's sole negligence, as long as some

causal connection between the additional insured's liability and the named insured's activities can be demonstrated;

• Provides coverage for completed operations claims.

56

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Additional Insureds - Policy Endorsements

 CG 20 10 03 97

• Provides the additional insured with coverage only for liability

arising out of the named insured’s ongoing operations;

• Intended to limit the term of the additional insured’s insurance

coverage to the time period during which the named insured is actually performing operations;

• Does not include coverage for completed operations.

57

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Additional Insureds - Policy Endorsements

 CG 20 10 10 01

• Provides the additional insured with coverage only for liability

arising out of the named insured’s ongoing operations;

• Expressly excludes injuries or damages suffered after (i) the

“named” insured’s work at the site of the cove operations has been completed, or (ii) the relevant portion of named insured’s work has been put to its intended use;

• Intended to limit the term of the additional insured’s coverage to

the time period during which the named insured is actually performing operations;

• Adopted in conjunction with CG 20 37 10 01, a new standard

form endorsement that will, if used in conjunction with this form, provide coverage similar to the CG 20 10 11 85.

58

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Additional Insureds - Policy Endorsements

 CG 20 37 10 01

• Provides additional insured with coverage products-completed
• perations hazard arising out of the named insured’s work;
• Only applies to completed operations;
• No coverage for premises or operations;
• When used in conjunction with CG 20 10 10 01, provides

coverage similar to CG 20 10 11 85.

59

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Additional Insureds – April 2013 ISO Changes

60

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Additional Insureds – April 2013 ISO Changes

61

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Certificates of Insurance

 What they are:

• Evidence of insurance issued to the policy’s named insured.

 What they are not:

• Evidence of coverage for additional insureds.
• Evidence of waivers of subrogation.
• Evidence of any other special endorsements to the named

insured’s insurance policies.

62

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Certificates of Insurance

• Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. Aargus Sec. Sys.,

Inc., 870 N.E.2d 988, 994 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007);

• Rodless Props., L.P. v. Westchester Fire Ins.

Co., 40 A.D.3d 253, 835 N.Y.S.2d 154, 155 (2007).

63

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Certificates of Insurance

 At common law, the enforceability of a certificate of insurance depends on whether or not it contains written disclaimers.

• “The presence or absence of ... a disclaimer on the certificate of

insurance determines whether an insured may rest its coverage case on representations made in the certificate. If the certificate does not include a disclaimer, the insured may rely on representations made in the certificate.... If the certificate includes a disclaimer, the insured may not rely on representations made in the certificate but must look to the policy itself to determine the scope of coverage.” American Country

• Ins. Co. v. Kraemer Bros., Inc., 699 N.E.2d 1056 (Ill. Ct. App.

1998).

64

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Certificates of Insurance

 If a certificate does not contain disclaimers, courts frequently apply one of two legal theories to determine its legal effect:

• Contract law - courts compare the terms of the certificate against

the terms of the policy to determine what effect the parties meant the certificate to have;

• Equitable estoppel - if the certificate holder reasonably relies on

the certificate, it may be unfair to allow the insurer to deny coverage as represented in the certificate.

65

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Certificates of Insurance – Contract Law

 Certificates without disclaimers that mirror the policy terms are usually treated as being intended to provide evidence of coverage, not as operative legal documents themselves. Skezas v. Safway Steel Prods., Inc., 85 Ill. App. 2d 295, 229 N.E.2d 781 (App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1967).  Certificates without disclaimers that contain additional policy terms may be construed as being the functional equivalent of an endorsement amending the underlying policy, assuming that the agent had authority to issue the certificate. TIG Ins.

• Co. v. Sedgwick James of Washington, 276 F.3d 754 (5th Cir.

2002).

66

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Certificates of Insurance – Equitable Estoppel

 Can certificates of insurance be used to support an estoppel theory?

• Majority – no:
• TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James of Washington, 184 F. Supp. 2d 591

(S.D. Tex. 2001), aff’d, 276 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2002);

• Redmond v. State Farm Ins. Co., 728 A.2d 1202 (D.C. 1999).
• Minority - yes:
• Marlin v. Wetzel County Board of Education, 569 S.E.2d 462 (W. Va.

2002).

67

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Certificates of Insurance – Disclaimers

 Three methods for overcoming standard disclaimers:

• Extrinsic evidence may show that the parties meant to use the

certificate to amend the terms of the underlying policy. See, e.g., Bucon, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Mfg. Ass'n Ins. Co., 151 A.D.2d 207, 547 N.Y.S.2d 925 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 1989);

• A careful reading of disclaimers may reveal that they are not

inconsistent with the holder's beliefs about coverage, and therefore should not automatically defeat an estoppel claim. See, e.g., TIG Ins. Co. v. Via Net, 178 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2005).

• Disclaimers may conflict with two provisions of the UCC requiring

that certificates of insurance issued in connection with certain commercial transactions must be viewed as acceptable proof of insurance.

68

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Certificates of Insurance

 Tip - Make sure to check state regulations and insurance bulletins for discussion of certificate of insurance issues.

• Several states have enacted statutes or administrative

regulations that expressly prohibit the use of a certificate of insurance to make modifications to the underlying policy.

• State laws generally require insurers to file all insurance policy

forms with the department prior to use, and admitted insurers are prohibited from selling insurance using unfiled policy forms. If the certificate purports to amend or alter the coverage, then it effectively becomes an endorsement which must be approved before use.

69

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Acord Certificate of Insurance – 05/10

70

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Acord Certificate of Insurance – 05/10

This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This certificate does not affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies below. This certificate

• f insurance does not constitute a contract between the

issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder.

71

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Acord Certificate of Insurance – 05/10

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an

• endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not

confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

72

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

Acord Certificate of Insurance – 05/10

Notice of Cancellation Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, notice will be delivered in accordance with the policy provisions.

73

Construction Defect Insurance Claims Ruth S. Kochenderfer & James P. Bobotek

THANK YOU!

Ruth S. Kochenderfer – Steptoe & Johnson LLP 202.429.8173 rkochenderfer@steptoe.com James P. Bobotek – Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 202.663.8930 james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com