Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-construction-defects-insurance?article_sidebar=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:52:25+00:00

Document:
FORT MYERS, Fla. — An insurance coverage dispute regarding an insurer’s duty to indemnify a $672,853.48 jury verdict in a construction defects case was stayed by a Florida federal judge on April 18, pending a determination by a state court regarding a motion for proceedings supplementary against the insurer and its insured (Southern-Owners Insurance Co. v. G.R. Construction Management Inc., et al., No. 18-829, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66435).
MOBILE, Ala. — A commercial general liability insurer in an April 16 complaint seeks a declaration from an Alabama federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defects case because faulty work claims do not constitute an “occurrence” and exclusions apply to preclude coverage (Axis Insurance Co. v. LT Maintenance Inc., No. 19-00196, S.D. Ala.).
SEATTLE — A commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defects case, a Washington federal judge ruled April 16, granting in part a default judgment in favor of the insurer (Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. v. Woodland Park Townhomes LLC, No. 18-1206, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65108).
ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 12 affirmed a lower federal court’s $1,020,000 judgment in favor of a general contractor’s surety for the full amount of a subcontractor’s surety performance bond in a dispute over costs arising from the subcontractor’s default in completing a federal government construction project (United States of America for the use of Wesco Distribution, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, No. 18-1455, 8th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10919).
RALEIGH, N.C. — Two subcontractor insurers owed a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured and as primary, noncontributory insurers in an underlying construction defects case, a North Carolina federal judge ruled April 11, granting summary judgment to the general contractor’s insurers (Westfield Insurance Co. v. Weaver Cooke Construction LLC, et al., No. 15-00169, E.D. N.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62208).
ATLANTA — Finding that the “your work” exclusion does not apply to property damage caused during ongoing operations, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 11 vacated and remanded a ruling that a commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defects case based on that exclusion (Southern-Owners Insurance Co. v. MAC Contractors of Florida LLC, et al., No. 18-13040, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10689).
HOUSTON — An insurer sued another insurer on April 10 in a Texas federal court, seeking a declaration of defense obligations for a mutual insured in underlying construction defects cases (Navigators Specialty Insurance Co. v. First Mercury Insurance Co., No. 19-1304, S.D. Texas).
BOSTON — Fact issues remain on a subrogated insurer’s negligence and breach of warranty claims based on an alleged manufacturing defect in a heating system, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled April 4, denying summary judgment on these claims (Arbella Mutual Insurance Co. v. Field Controls LLC, et al., No. 16-10656, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58319).
PENSACOLA, Fla. — Two subcontractor insurers have no duty to defend a general contractor against defective work allegations, a Florida federal judge held March 30, addressing summary judgment motions raised by several insurers, including the subrogated insurer to the general contractor, over their liability (BITCO National Insurance Co. v. Old Dominion Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-262, BITCO National Insurance Co. v. Southern-Owners Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-326, N.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54908).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Following a reversal and remand of an insurance coverage dispute from the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Kansas federal judge on March 29 denied an excess insurer’s motion for summary judgment as to whether certain policy exclusions precluded coverage for defective jet bubble reactors (JBRs) that were constructed by subcontractors, with the judge finding many of the insurer’s arguments foreclosed by the appeals court’s ruling (Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Insurance [UK] Ltd., et al., No. 2:12-cv-02350, D. Kan., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54021).
MIAMI — A federal judge in Florida issued a slew of evidentiary and expert witness rulings on March 29 as an insurer defends claims that it improperly failed to defend its insured from construction defect claims (MI Windows & Doors LLC, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 14-3139, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54058).
BOSTON — A Massachusetts federal judge on March 31 found that a commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend its construction company insured against an underlying lawsuit, finding that the damage to the insured’s foundation, whether an accident or not, falls under the scope of a policy exclusion (Mills Construction Corporation, Inc., et al. v. Nautilus Insurance Company, No. 18-10549, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55256).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A commercial general liability insurer was granted a default judgment against its insureds on March 25 by a North Carolina federal judge in its declaratory judgment lawsuit regarding two construction defect cases (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Jose Castillo, et al., No. 18-00271, W.D. N.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49319).
ROANOKE, Va. — Because there was no “occurrence,” a Virginia federal magistrate judge on March 29 found that an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for any award over damage to a piece of equipment the insured provided for a construction project (Western World Insurance Co. v. Air Tech Inc., No. 17-518, W.D. Va., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53683).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — No coverage is afforded under two homeowners policies for cracking and deteriorating basement walls caused by the use of defective concrete because one of the policies includes an exclusion for cracking caused by the use of defective construction materials and the other policy provides coverage only for sudden and abrupt collapses, a Connecticut federal judge said March 29 (Frank V. Huschle, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., et. al., No. 18-248, D. Conn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53978).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.