CHICAGO — A general contractor that obtained a judgment against a subcontractor that supplied defective materials for a construction project at O’Hare Airport moved for sanctions against the subcontractor’s insurers on April 11, less than two weeks after a federal judge in Illinois overruled the insurers’ objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling partially granting the contractor’s request to compel production of various documents. The contractor says the insurers’ objections were based on arguments that were not presented to the magistrate judge.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California in a one-page April 5 order denied a builders risk insurer’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of a Feb. 15 ruling denying the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a dispute over coverage for the cost of repairing fractured support beams, finding “no basis for reconsideration.”
TACOMA, Wash. — A federal judge in Washington on April 8 granted a stipulated motion to dismiss with prejudice a condominium owners’ association’s suit against its insurer related to the insurer’s denial of the association’s claim for hidden damage to sheathing and framework at the condominium complex.
BROOKLYN, N.Y — A default judgment was entered April 8 as to an excavation subcontractor after a New York federal judge issued a docket-only order adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant a commercial general liability insurer’s default judgment motion because of a state court’s finding that the subcontractor was liable for damages to an adjacent property in an underlying negligence suit.
BOSTON — A Massachusetts federal judge on April 5 issued a dismissal order after being advised that an insurer and plumber settled the subrogated insurer’s suit related to the plumber’s alleged negligence regarding installation of an exterior wall’s pot filler and failing to ensure there was adequate insulation in the pipes leading to the pot filler.
DENVER — A valuation provision in a remodeler coverage endorsement applies to an insured’s claim for the collapse of its building because the remodeler coverage endorsement states that the endorsement’s valuation provision replaces any other valuation provision in the policy and without the endorsement, no coverage would be afforded for the collapse of the building, which was undergoing renovations, a Colorado federal judge said March 30 in granting a builders risk insurer’s motion for summary judgment.
BALTIMORE — A Maryland federal judge on March 30 granted summary judgment to a plumbing parts manufacturer and to a condominium council in an action filed by a third-party plumbing subcontractor seeking contribution and indemnification for liability in underlying lawsuits arising from alleged water damage in a condominium building, finding that the subcontractor’s claims failed “to create a genuine dispute” regarding the manufacturer or the council’s liability.
LEXINGTON, Ky. — In response to a court-ordered status report about insurers’ cross-claims against a subcontractor and his company, a Kentucky federal judge on April 11 issued an order dismissing the cross-claims against the subcontractor but keeping the claims against his company in a coverage action related to alleged faulty water remediation.
NEW ORLEANS — Guided by the Texas Supreme Court’s “thoughtful analysis” of two certified questions, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 12 affirmed a lower federal court’s summary judgment ruling that a commercial general liability insurer has a duty to defend a commercial driller insured against an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit, rejecting the insurer’s contention that two policy exclusions preclude coverage.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A federal judge in Connecticut in an April 5 text-only order dismissed a consolidated action by a municipality, contractors, manufacturers and insurers concerning the failure of a sewer pipe liner in West Hartford, Conn., the same day a minute entry in the docket indicates that the parties had reached a settlement “of all claims in the case” during a settlement conference that day.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A Tennessee federal judge on March 28 denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a coverage action filed against its insured, a real estate developer, seeking a declaration that coverage does not exist for damage to condominium buildings purportedly incurring cracks in walls arising from soil settling under the buildings, finding that the insurer failed to show that policy exclusions applied or that there was no dispute of material fact.
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge on March 28 granted an insurer’s summary judgment motion in a coverage action filed against its insured construction company related to construction of a home addition, finding that the insurer is not required to defend or indemnify the insured in a separate suit because the insured failed to satisfy insurance policies’ notice provisions.
DALLAS — Noting that “[s]ubstantial facts have changed since the parties briefed” a contractor’s motion to dismiss its insurer’s action seeking declarations about its rights and obligations related to the installation of defective windows in an apartment building that prevent her from “conducting a proper subject matter jurisdiction analysis,” a federal judge in Texas on March 31 denied the motion and ordered the parties to brief the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
BOSTON — An insurer on March 28 won a summary judgment from a Massachusetts federal judge that it has no duty to defend an insured accused of breach of contract in connection with construction defects at an apartment complex in New Jersey.
CINCINNATI — An Ohio appeals panel on April 6 held that a commercial general liability insurer was primarily liable for an insured’s $367,487 defense costs in an underlying lawsuit brought by residential tenants, reversing a lower court’s judgment against an employment practices liability insurer in the CGL insurer’s equitable contribution action.
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on March 29 refused to reconsider his September ruling that an insurer must continue to defend property and project management service companies in a suit related to persistent construction and design defects with the balconies of a condominium; in a separate ruling the same day, the judge adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees and costs.
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 6 held that a homeowners insurer’s certificate of insurance entitled it to the same coverage as a contractor and an underlying breach of contract claim against the homeowners insurer is a covered claim under a contractors policy, affirming a lower federal court’s ruling in a coverage dispute over claims seeking to hold the homeowners insurer liable for its own acts arising out of a contractor’s alleged errors in remediation work.
PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on March 31 dismissed without prejudice a declaratory judgment suit filed by two insurers seeking to resolve coverage issues related to defect and faulty workmanship claims in the construction of a condominium project, finding that “[a]ll of the Reifer, Brillhart and Summy factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction” in light of a pending parallel state proceeding.
DALLAS — A Texas federal judge on March 23 dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit by Lloyd’s of London seeking a declaration that it does not have to indemnify a developer in a construction defects lawsuit, saying that the underwriter’s claim is not justiciable and that the court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
PHOENIX — A federal judge in Arizona on March 10 issued an order dismissing a commercial general liability insurer’s declaratory judgment action against its insured contractor, as well as a cross-action, with prejudice in 60 days unless a stipulation to dismiss is filed before that date in light of an undisclosed settlement announced by the parties in a March 9 notice; the notice was filed two days after the judge declined to dismiss the cross-claims after finding that tribal law applies to the subcontract.