FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — An insurer alleges in a Nov. 8 complaint filed in a Florida federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify a contractor against defects allegations in a condominium development because the policy does not provide coverage for new construction (Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. WCI Communities Inc., No. 18-62716, S.D. Fla.).
FLORENCE, S.C. — In a Nov. 8 complaint, an insurer seeks a declaration from a South Carolina federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify contractors against defects allegations in a residential development because no “property damage” occurred during the policy period (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Carlos Castro, et al., No. 18-03026, D. S.C.).
RICHMOND, Va. — Coverage for underlying claims filed against an insured as a result of two bridge collapses is subject to a policy’s $3 million liability limit, rather than the policy’s $5 million aggregate limit, because the claims are related claims that arose from the same design failure by the insured, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Nov. 7 in affirming a district court’s opinion (Stewart Engineering Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., No. 18-1386, 4th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31521).
MONROE, La. — In granting reconsideration in part, a Louisiana federal judge on Nov. 5 reopened an insurer’s coverage dispute regarding allegations that a subcontractor’s faulty work led to children becoming sick from excess moisture (Houston Specialty Insurance Co. v. Ascension Insulation & Supply Inc., et al., No. 17-1010, W.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189303).
HAMMOND, Ind. — An insured alleges in a Nov. 5 complaint filed in an Indiana federal court that an insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith when denying coverage based upon a condominium exclusion for cracking damage caused by the insured’s work (Gary Material Supply LLC v. Western World Insurance Group, No. 18-00421, N.D. Ind.).
AUSTIN, Texas — No coverage is owed for a collapse that occurred during the construction of a hotel because the collapse is precluded by a policy’s earth movement exclusion, sewer exclusion and defects exclusion, an insurer argues in a Nov. 2 response to the insured’s motion for summary judgment (White Lodging Services Corp., et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 17-277, W.D. Texas).
LOS ANGELES — In an equitable contribution dispute, a California appeals panel on Oct. 31 held that an insurer failed to show that a real estate developer was an additional insured under another insurer’s policies for purpose of reimbursement of defense costs in an underlying construction defect action (Interstate Fire and Casualty Co. v. Axis Surplus Insurance Co., No. B286980, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7393).
CHICAGO — Denying a motion for reconsideration, an Illinois federal judge on Oct. 31 upheld his ruling that an insurer has no duty to indemnify an insured for a default judgment entered in favor of condominium association in an underlying construction defects lawsuit (Essex Insurance Co. v. The Structural Shop Ltd., et al., No. 15-2806, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186620).
LOS ANGELES — In an Oct. 18 complaint filed California federal court, insurers for subcontractors seek equitable reimbursement from contractors as additional insureds for defense costs incurred in 51 underlying construction defects cases (The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, et al. v. Pulte Group Inc., et al., No. 18-08994, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — Insurance companies in an Oct. 17 complaint in a California federal court request equitable contribution from two other insurers of $1.3 million incurred in the defense of seven underlying construction defects actions (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, et al. v. Lexington Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-08964, C.D. Calif.).
FORT MYERS, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on Oct. 22 dismissed two insurers from a dispute over the duty to defend and indemnify a contractor against a condominium association’s construction defects lawsuit that resulted in a $1.27 million settlement (Alta Mar Condominium Association Inc., et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-359, M.D. Fla.).
GREENEVILLE, Tenn. — A surety alleges in an Oct. 26 complaint filed in a Tennessee federal court that two Tennessee citizens failed to indemnify $1.6 million to the surety for a university’s claims against a masonry subcontractor’s defective work (The Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. JDC Masonry Inc., et al., No. 18-462, E.D. Tenn.).
NEW YORK — An insurer is not obligation to defend a stop-work order issued by the New York City Department of Buildings because the order is not a suit under the terms of the policy at issue, a New York County Supreme Court justice said Sept. 18 (Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., et al., and D7 Construction 101 LLC, et al. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Co., Nos. 653950/12, 590527/13, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4063).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — After holding that a property owner was entitled to an appraisal of damage under its policy and that the owner’s claims sounded in breach of contract, a Florida federal magistrate judge on Oct. 18 recommended that the case be stayed pending an appraisal and that the owner file an amended complaint against an insurer to assert a breach of contract claim (ABC University Shops, LLC v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., No. 18-60562, S.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181022).
COLUMBUS, Ga. — While a general contractor and a subcontractor were both found responsible for damages arising out of delays to the construction on new barracks at a U.S. Army base, a Georgia federal jury on Oct. 26 found that a surety owed no coverage for the damages (Cleveland Construction Inc. v. Stellar Group Inc., et al., No. 16-179, M.D. Ga.).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A South Carolina federal judge on Oct. 24 declined to stay a coverage dispute over a defectively constructed project for an in camera review and instead ordered an insurer to produce documents pertaining to reinsurance and reserves (ContraVest Inc., et al. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co., No. 15-00304, D. S.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182196).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A Connecticut federal judge on Oct. 19 denied a number of motions to dismiss filed by defendant insurers in a class action suit seeking coverage for the deterioration and cracking of homeowners’ basement walls caused by the use of defective concrete after determining that the motions will best be addressed after the Connecticut high court answers a certified question regarding whether a collapse provision, used in numerous policies, should be applied to the homeowners’ claims (Michael Halloran v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-133, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179807).
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Homeowners sufficiently raised allegations on whether an insurer acted in good faith in denying their water damages claim and if the insurer breached the contract by failing to investigate the claim, a New Mexico federal judge ruled Oct. 17, denying summary judgment to the insurer on breach of contract claims (Hector Fava, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Corp., No. 17-456, D. N.M., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179385).
LOS ANGELES — In an Oct. 11 complaint filed in a California federal court, an insurer argues that it has no duty to defend or indemnify a contractor and subcontractor because a total pollution exclusion and a professional liability exclusion bar coverage for an underlying construction defects case (Houston Casualty Co. v. Rosebud Ventures LLC, et al., No. 18-8777, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals court on Sept. 27 heard arguments in an equitable contribution dispute between two insurers regarding fees incurred in the defense of a real estate developer as an additional insured in an underlying construction defect action (Interstate Fire and Casualty Co. v. Axis Surplus Insurance Co., No. B286980, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8).