PORTLAND, Ore. — An insurer filed a declaratory judgment action on Aug. 10 in an Oregon federal court, regarding its duty to defend and indemnify an insured and others in a construction defects case (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Oakmont LLC, et al., No. 18-01484, D. Ore.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware judge on Aug. 9 determined that an insurer is entitled to reimbursement for defense costs paid on behalf of its insureds because the insurer had no duty to defend the insureds under a contractors professional liability policy (Catlin Specialty Insurance Co. v. CBL & Associates Properties et al., No. N16C-07-166 PRW CCLD, Del. Super., 2018 Del. Super. LEXIS 342).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer has no duty to indemnify two lawsuits arising out of disputes on work performed on condominium buildings, a California federal judge ruled Aug. 10, granting in part summary judgment to the insurer but denying judgment on the duty to defend in light of triable fact issues on several exclusions (United States Liability Insurance Co. v. Contempo Homeowners Association, No. 18-02722, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135570).
FORT MYERS, Fla. — An insurer that was found not to have a duty to defend or indemnify a general contractor in a construction defects case on Aug. 9 was denied its request by a Florida federal judge to enter the judgment against not only the contractor but also the homeowners who filed the underlying case (Southern-Owners Insurance Co. v. MAC Contractors of Florida LLC, et al., No. 18-21, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134072).
MONROE, La. — A Louisiana federal judge on Aug. 9 denied dismissal of a commercial general liability insurer’s coverage dispute regarding allegations that a subcontractor’s faulty work led to children being 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 134558).
LOS ANGELES — Three lawsuits were filed by insurers on Aug. 8 in a California federal court asserting equitable contribution claims over defense costs for construction defects cases (St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., No. 18-06794; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 18-06803; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 18-06799, C.D. Calif.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Insurers argue in a July 6 reply brief to a California appeals court that a state tax code does not preclude them from pursuing equitable and contractual subrogation claims against various subcontractors that allegedly owed a duty to defend a developer in an underlying construction defects case (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, et al. v. Engel Insulation Inc., No. C085753, Calif. App., 3rd Dist.).
FORT MYERS, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on Aug. 6 granted in part an insurer’s motion to dismiss an insured’s breach of contract case but allowed an insured leave to amend (Marram Corp. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., No. 18-204, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131532).
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — In a dispute over allegedly defectively manufactured clothes dryers, a Pennsylvania federal judge on Aug. 3 severed each of an insurer’s 86 claims and dismissed 64 claims over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, No. 18-00699, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130241).
NEW ORLEANS — An insured failed to meet its burden to show allocation of settlement proceeds between covered and noncovered damages from a courthouse construction project, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Aug. 2 (Satterfield and Pontikes Construction Inc., et al. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., No. 17-20513, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21488).
LOS ANGELES — Two insurers allege in a July 18 complaint filed in a California federal court that three other insurers owe equitable contribution for the defense of an underlying construction defects case against a mutual additional insured (St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., et al. v. Everest National Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-06222, C.D. Calif.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — No coverage is owed to insureds seeking coverage for damages to their home’s foundation walls caused by a chemical reaction in the concrete used in the foundation because the insureds failed to prove that a collapse of the foundation will occur in the foreseeable future, a Connecticut federal judge said July 31 (Christopher D. Lester, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 16-909, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127711).
PITTSBURGH — In an insurer’s subrogation action, a Pennsylvania federal judge on July 30 dismissed cross-claims against a city’s building code inspector for its alleged negligence in approving plans for a home’s renovation that resulted in a fire because the code inspector has governmental immunity (Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Whipple-Allen Real Estate, et al. v. Kellick Construction Co., et al., No. 18-41, W.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126658).
MIAMI — A Florida federal judge on July 30 refused to dismiss or stay an insurer’s claims regarding the issue of its duty to indemnify underlying allegations of construction defects and deficiencies in a conversion of apartments to condominiums (Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Maitland Center LLC, et al., No. 18-80452, S.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126460).
CLARKSBURG, W.Va. — Allegations of damages caused only by insureds’ intended activities do not arise from an “occurrence,” a West Virginia federal judge ruled July 25, finding that an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds (Nautilus Insurance Co. v. GC&P Development LLC, et al., No. 17-60, N.D. W.Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124333).
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on July 25 declined an insurer’s request to amend its answer to assert contribution claims against nine insurers who are no longer parties to a condominium association’s lawsuit seeking coverage for water damage (Quarterdeck Condominium Association of Apartment Owners v. Safeco Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-0999, W.D. Wash., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124651).
FORT MYERS, Fla. — A dispute over whether insurance policies show that a subcontractor’s insurer was an excess insurer to a contractor and, therefore, had no duty to defend or indemnify against construction defects claims should be decided on summary judgment, a Florida federal judge ruled July 26, denying a motion to dismiss (Alta Mar Condominium Association Inc., et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-359, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124864).
PHILADELPHIA — Regarding a contractor’s retainage claim against a subcontractor and its sureties on a delayed project, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled July 24 that the subcontractor cannot rely on a pay-if-paid clause because the subcontractor prevented the occurrence of a condition precedent regardless of whether its actions were deliberate (Connelly Construction Corp. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, et al., No. 16-555, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123009).
HARTFORD, Conn. — An insurer has no duty to provide coverage to its insureds for the cracking of the concrete used in the home’s basement walls because the insureds failed to allege that a sudden or abrupt collapse occurred as required by policy’s collapse provision, a Connecticut federal judge said July 24 in granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss (Kenneth Andrew, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-1192, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123328).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A subcontractor argues to the U.S. Supreme Court in a July 10 brief that there is no split on how federal appellate courts predict how a state high court would rule over whether faulty work that caused damage to an insured’s own work can constitute an “occurrence” (Aspen Insurance [UK] Ltd, et al. v. Black & Veatch Corp., No. 17-1662, U.S. Sup.).