BEAUFORT, S.C. — A commercial general liability insurer contends that no coverage is owed for defective stucco installed at a residence because the policies' exclusions for "prior work" and "your work" bar coverage, the insurer contends in an Oct. 2 complaint filed in South Carolina federal court (Atain Specialty Insurance Co. v. HJ Stucco LLC, et al., No. 20-3498, D. S.C.).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A continuous and progressive injury limitation endorsement (CPIL) relieves an insurer from a duty to defend or indemnify a $3.9 million construction defects case against a contractor because the "property damage" was first known after the policy's expiration, a South Carolina federal judge held Oct. 2 (Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. Carolina Professional Builders, LLC, et al., No. 18-2352, D. S.C., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183205).
SAN FRANCISCO — A general contractor accuses three insurers in a Sept. 25 complaint filed in a California federal court of breaching their contract and acting in bad faith in denying a defense for claims of alleged damages related to a fire sprinkler system caused by allegedly defective construction (Build Group, Inc. v. Rockhill Insurance Company, et al., No. 20-6728, N.D. Calif.).
SEATTLE — A condominium association sued its property insurer in federal court in Washington on Sept. 24, alleging that the insurer breached the terms of its insurance policy and acted in bad faith in denying full coverage for water damage uncovered on buildings owned by the association (La Reve Condominium Association v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 20-1425, W.D. Wash.).
DALLAS — A commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for an underlying suit arising out of water damage to a high school as a result of an allegedly defective roofing system manufactured by the insured because the policies' your work or your product exclusions clearly bar coverage, a Texas federal judge said Sept. 25 (Siplast Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., No. 19-1320, N.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176539).
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Sept. 22 dismissed a contribution and subrogation lawsuit brought by two insurers against Clarendon National Insurance Co. concerning coverage for 600 underlying construction defect claims and suits because there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction (United Specialty Insurance Company, et al. v. Clarendon National Insurance Company, No. 19-1715, E.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174054).
HOUSTON — An excess insurer's breach of contract suit against another excess insurer over contribution toward almost $2 million spent to settle a construction defects case may proceed, a Texas federal judge ruled Sept. 22, citing genuine issues of material fact (Colony Insurance Company v. First Mercury Insurance Company, No. 18-3429, S.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174510).
ST. LOUIS — A Missouri federal judge on Sept. 22 refused to dismiss and instead stayed an insurer's indemnification case over homeowners' inverse condemnation suits alleging that a Missouri Highways & Transportation Commission (MHTC) construction project increased water runoff, causing discoloration and degradation of lakes (Arch Insurance Company v. Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., No. 19-2718, E.D. Mo., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173059).
SEATTLE — A homeowners association sued Allstate Insurance Co. on Sept. 21 in a Washington federal court for breach of contract and bad faith in connection with the denial of coverage for $4.7 million in repairs to the condominium's hidden damage (Northgate Plaza Homeowners Association v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., No. 20-1392, W.D. Wash.).
STATESBORO, Ga. — A Georgia federal judge on Sept. 17 determined that a homeowners policy's defective construction exclusion bars coverage for water damages arising out of the defective construction of a home but found that a question of fact remains on whether the policy's deterioration exclusion bars coverage for the water damages (George H. Rountree v. Encompass Home and Auto Insurance Co., No. 19-008, S.D. Ga., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170741).
SAN FRANCISCO — Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America alleges in a Sept. 16 complaint in a California federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify two insureds against allegations of construction defects in an apartment complex (Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. 2541 California Street, LLC, et al., No. 20-6509, N.D. Calif.).
FORT WORTH, Texas — Evanston Insurance Co. filed a complaint on Sept. 16 in a Texas federal court against its insureds, a condominium association, a primary insurer and an excess insurer, seeking a declaration that it has no duty or indemnify a construction defects lawsuit that has been stayed in favor of proceeding in arbitration (Evanston Insurance Company v. Villas of Stone Glen Condominium Association, Inc., et al., No. 20-1028, N.D. Texas).
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — A federal magistrate judge in Alabama on Sept. 16 refused to dismiss an insurer's coverage dispute over two construction defect lawsuits because the insurer's potential amount of indemnification exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold as one of the suits seeks damages of $283,872 for repairs (American Builders Insurance Co. v. Riverwood Construction LLC, et al., No. 19-1757, N.D. Ala., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169531).
CHICAGO — An insurer may proceed with its chosen counsel in the defense of a subcontractor against allegations that the subcontractor's faulty work caused an apartment building's structural column to fail, an Illinois federal judge ruled Sept. 14 because the subcontractor failed to show that there would be a conflict of interest from the insurer (Builders Concrete Services, LLC v. Westfield National Insurance Company, No. 19-7792, N.D. Ill., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167145).
HARTFORD, Conn. — A lower court was wrong to find that two business risk exclusions relieved a commercial general liability insurer of its duty to defend property damage from the collapse of a house following repairs from hurricanes, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Sept. 9, reversing the entry of summary judgment to the insurer (Nash Street, LLC v. Main Street America Assurance Company, et al., No. SC 20389, Conn. Sup., 2020 Conn. LEXIS 197).
PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon federal judge on Sept. 4 denied two insurers' motions for summary judgment on the applicability of the known loss doctrine and late notice because questions of fact exist regarding when the insured became aware of the ongoing water damage in its apartment buildings (Great American Alliance Insurance Co. v. SIR Columbia Knoll Associates Ltd. Partnership, et al., No. 18-908, D. Ore., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162401).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify allegations of defects in an insured's design and construction of a hangar to store an airship because faulty workmanship is not an "occurrence," a Pennsylvania federal judge held Sept. 4 (The Burlington Insurance Company v. Shelter Structures, Inc., No. 19-4857, E.D. Pa., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162237).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A North Carolina federal judge on Sept. 1 refused to dismiss an insured architectural firm and architect's coverage dispute with their insurer regarding allegations of faulty construction and design of a Hampton Inn hotel in Louisiana (A.P. Architecture, Inc., et al. v. Admiral Insurance Co., et al., No. 20-350, W.D. N.C., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159978).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurance company says in a lawsuit filed Aug. 5 in federal court in Pennsylvania that it has no duty to defend or indemnify an insured stucco subcontractor and a general contractor in a couple's 2018 state court action over water damage allegedly caused by improperly installed stucco because the damage was not the result of an occurrence and because the alleged damage occurred outside the periods of two businessowners liability policies held by the subcontractor (NGM Insurance Co. v. Cill Dara Plastering Inc., et al., No. 20-3807, E.D. Pa.).
PORTLAND, Ore. — Allstate Insurance Co. filed a declaratory judgment complaint on Aug. 31 in an Oregon federal court regarding its duty to defend and indemnify against homeowners' allegations of improper construction and remodeling for a single-family residence that caused damages of $456,000 (Allstate Insurance Company v. Ni Xu, et al., No. 20-1488, D. Ore.).