Opinion ID: 182501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Events giving rise to this litigation

Text: VRV Inc. entered into a contract to develop residential lots in Dallas County for Goodman Family of Builders, L.P. Goodman's successor in interest, K. Hovnanian HomesDFW, LLC (Hovnanian), eventually built new homes on the developed lots and sold them to individual homeowners. In May 2004, during the development process, VRV Inc. purchased a CGL policy from Mid-Continent. VRV Inc. was designated as the named insured, and its form of business was identified as a corporation. Kenny Marchant was covered under the policy as VRV Inc.'s executive officer. The policy was effective from May 25, 2004 until May 25, 2005. VRV Inc. hired subcontractors to design and build retaining walls on the residential lots. The retaining walls at issue in this case were located within the property lines of four individual homeowners. Effective January 1, 2005, VRV Inc. converted into a Texas limited partnership, VRV L.P. The CGL policy with Mid-Continent was renewed from May 25, 2005 until May 25, 2006, but VRV Inc. continued to be designated as the named insured, and its form of business continued to be identified as a corporation. There is no evidence or allegation that Mid-Continent was informed of VRV Inc.'s conversion into VRV L.P. VRV L.P. did not renew its CGL policies after May 25, 2006. A homeowner's inspection conducted sometime between May and July 2006 identified a crack in a retaining wall. In January and March 2007, after periods of heavy rainfall, the retaining walls collapsed, damaging the four homeowners' backyards and undermining support for a public utility easement owned by the City of Dallas. [3] In April 2007, Hovnanian sued, in relevant part, VRV for negligence and breach of contract. The four homeowners intervened in the lawsuit and sued, in relevant part, VRV L.P. and Marken for negligence and breach of implied warranties. The City of Dallas also intervened and sued, in relevant part, VRV for breach of duty to provide lateral and adjacent support for the City's easement. [4] VRV demanded defense and indemnity from Mid-Continent, and filed this action after Mid-Continent rejected its demands. Mid-Continent asserts that VRV is not insured under the CGL policies issued to VRV Inc., no property damage is alleged to have occurred during the effective policy periods, and certain policy exclusions preclude coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to Mid-Continent solely on the ground that VRV is not insured under the CGL policies.