Home builders in South Carolina are still partially protected under the standard General Liability policy form against the “no occurrence” claim denial strategy used by many insurance carriers to totally deny workmanship claims for both faulty and resulting non faulty work. In a recently released September 8, 2009 ruling by the SC Supreme Court in the Auto Owners vs Newman rehearing, the court affirmed most of its prior decision. However, for reasons stated at the end of this article, the carriers have a different way to deny these claims for most homes built after 2004.

 The case involved a builder, Trinity, that constructed a house in 1999 that resulted in construction defect problems (moisture intrusion) arising from the installation of EIFS. Auto Owners Insurance Company sought a declaratory action to determine its rights and obligations. They argued the theory that negligent construction is not an “occurrence” and thus not covered under the General Liability policy form. They reasoned that the subcontractor’s defective installation of stucco did not cause an “accident” contributing an “occurrence” subject to coverage under the policy.

 On this issue, the SC Supreme court rehashed prior case law under L-J and High Country and used the following reasoning to reject Auto Owner’s argument and to strike the “no occurrence” claim denial in SC  (at least for resulting property damage beyond the defective work itself) :

“The L-J court went on to explain …. a CGL policy may provide coverage where faulty workmanship causes third party bodily injury or damage to other property besides the defective work product.”

 “…. the High Country court found that the complaint was not simply a claim for faulty workmanship seeking damages to repair the defective siding itself, but rather, was a claim for negligent construction resulting in damage to other property.”

 “In our view, these findings establish that there was ‘property damage’  beyond that of the defective work product itself, and that therefore, the homeowner’s claim is not merely a claim for faulty workmanship typically excluded under a CGL policy.”

 “Furthermore, although the subcontractor’s negligent application of the stucco does not on its own constitute an ‘occurrence’ , we find that the continuous moisture intrusion into the home was  ‘an unexpected happening or event’ not intended by Trinity – in other words, an ‘accident’ …”

 “To interpret  ‘occurrence’  as narrowly as Auto Owners……..would render both the  ‘your work’  exclusion and the subcontractor’s exception to the  ‘your work’  exclusion in the policy meaningless.” 

“Accordingly, we hold that the subcontractor’s negligence resulted in an ‘occurrence’ falling within the CGL policy’s initial grant of coverage for the resulting ‘property damage’ to the home’s framing and exterior sheathing.” 

 Declad / Reclad Of Stucco

 However, the SC Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling and denied coverage for “…. the replacing and repairing of the defective stucco itself as an incidental cost to repairing the damage to the other property. The court cited the exclusion barring coverage for “….any loss, cost, or expense…for the repair, replacement, adjustment, removal or disposal of…’your product’; …’your work’; or …’impaired property’; if such product , work or property is withdrawn …from use… because of a known or suspected defect, deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous condition in it.”  In citing this exclusion, the court reasoned that its application is consistent with the court’s acknowledgement that “a claim solely for economic losses resulting from faulty workmanship is part of an insured’s contractual liability which a CGL policy is not intended to cover.”

 In My Opinion 

Even though this is a partially positive ruling for builders that use subs, the Supreme Court is faulty in its own analysis and should have ruled that the standard CGL policy form covers property damage to the faulty work itself in addition to resulting damage to the non faulty work. Such a ruling to cover the faulty work itself would have upheld the true intent of the General Liability policy form as evidenced by the “subcontractor exception” to the “damage to your work” exclusion. Even the most basic insurance courses (Certified Insurance Counselor) taught to insurance agents will illustrate this concept with on point examples about how it is the intent of the policy for coverage to extend to the faulty work itself.

As concerns its ruling on the denial of coverage for the EIFS declad / reclad, a number of carriers in South Carolina probably wish that this ruling had occurred years earlier before they paid out tens of millions in dollars of claims for this exposure.  Also, it appears that the court may have misapplied the “Recall Of Products, Work, Or Impaired Property” exclusion that was cited as the sole reason for denying the declad / reclad of the stucco. According to Scott Turner in Insurance Coverage Of Construction Disputes, this exclusion is limited to recalls of products or work for preventative purposes and does not apply to claims involving actual property damage to the product or work that has already failed.

 The carriers that write General Liability policies for builders will not like the overall tone of this decision; however, all they have to do to escape liability for construction defect is to use “Exclusion: Damage To Your Work Performed By Subcontractors On Your Behalf (CG2294)”. As a matter of fact, most carriers that write General Liability for builders have used this exclusion or a similar version since 2004. Therefore, the  partially favorable supreme court ruling will mean little for the average builder.

 Source: John Sadler 

Decision

I came across an excellent article that provides new information on the depth of this crisis. However, I believe that the damage estimates on a per house basis may be too low.

“We know that some of the builders are estimating that a minimum remediation will cost at least $75,000 per home with an approximate square footage of 2,000. The cost will go up from there based on square footage and the adequacy of the remediation being suggest.”

“Some observers see this base estimate as extremely conservative, and do not rule out the possibility that a figure twice as big may emerge over time. This possibility cannot be dismissed entirely given the fact that this estimate simply includes materials, fittings and certain items in the home. It does not include health care costs and other expenses incurred by the people living in the homes.”

Source: US Senators Call For Chinese Drywall Probe, Peter J Bown, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KF24Cb01.html

Attorneys Jeff Vita and David Jordan explain in excellent article how contractors sued for Chinese Drywall problems may defeat their General Liability carriers’ use of the pollution exclusion to deny their claims.

Under the standard General Liability policy, “pollutants” are defined to mean “any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.”

Some courts such as in CA may extend this definition further to follow the EPA or equivalent state definition of “pollutants”. In these states, even dirt and rocks can be pollutants once they are removed from their original location.

According to Vita and Jordan, the successful use of the pollution exclusion to deny coverage will depend on state case law to a large degree. As a result, choice-of-law issues can be important if the option is available to choose the state of defense.

Some states define “pollutants” differently than others for the purposes of such exclusion. For example, some states may define “pollutants” in their traditional sense and require the pollutants in question to involve an environmental catastrophe caused by reckless or intentional misconduct (ex: dumping of hazardous chemicals) in order for the exclusion to stand. Other states may allow the exclusion to stand where the negligent use or handling of toxic substances occurs in the ordinary course of business (ex: unintentional release of carbon monoxide by an HVAC contractor).

For More Information: See article entitled The Not-So-Great Drywall Of China by Jeffrey J. Vita and David G. Jordan

Source: Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.  www.sdvlaw.com

General Liability carriers specializing in contractor insurance for builders and drywall subs are “sweating it out” over the potentially massive claims dollars that could be paid out in litigation, settlement, and adverse jury verdicts arising from Chinese drywall.

However, due to the impact of little known policy exclusions, and evolving case law in many states, General Liability carriers may escape liability for all or a significant percentage of claims leaving builders and trade subs facing huge uninsured losses and potential bankruptcy.

From the point of view of the homeowner, these claims will not likely be covered by Homeowners Property Insurance. And, to the extent that the damages are not covered by the General Liability policies of builders, subs, and distributors, home owners will incur devastating out of pocket losses.

Per House Damage Could Be Astronomical

There is a lot at stake for all parties because the damages on a per house basis are likely to be astronomical. The lawsuit papers will allege that the fumes from the defective Chinese drywall have resulted in corrosion damages to all metal parts of the house including electrical systems, copper piping, HVAC and other metal fixtures. In addition, it will be alleged that the non metal parts of the house have been damaged by foul smelling and noxious sulfur dioxide fumes.

Some experts may claim that the drywall can be sealed, but this approach is questionable and unlikely to be accepted by home owners. Most lawsuits will likely ask for the total removal and replacement of all drywall and electrical systems as well as other building materials that may have been contaminated by the fumes.

Next, add damages for remediation or replacement to household contents for exposure to corrosive and foul smelling fumes. Top this off with the possibility of bodily injury claims due to adverse health consequences to occupants due to exposure.

Pollution Liability Exclusions

All Contractor General Liability policies include a standard exclusion for liability arising from the “actual, alleged or threatened discharge, seepage, release or escape of pollutants’,” “Pollutants” are defined as any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste. “Based on this broad definition, the carriers will take the position that the fumes released from Chinese drywall fall under the policy definition of “pollution.”

Fortunately, the standard policy language includes an exception to the exclusion for pollution that results from the products or completed operations of an insured. In other words, the insurance carrier can’t use the pollution exclusion to deny a claim when the pollution arises after the house has been sold.

Unfortunately, many General Liability policies that are sold to contractors include a Total Pollution Exclusion that does not allow the exception that is mentioned in the above paragraph. The presence of the Total Pollution Exclusion (or similar exclusion) on a policy will allow the insurance carrier to take the position of denial of all damages and legal defense. The success of such a position will be determined by the allegations in a specific lawsuit as well as case law. The successful use of the Total Pollution exclusion, if upheld by the courts, will have a devastating impact on all defendants.

Property Damage Exclusions And Emerging Case Law

In the event that the Total Pollution Exclusion is not present on the General Liability policy or if it is not ultimately upheld by the courts, the claims adjusters will have a fallback position in their quest to deny a significant percentage of Chinese drywall claims.

As a result of the construction defect crisis, most General Liability carriers specializing in builders insurance began to insert special policy exclusions around five years ago to escape liability for construction defect claims. The most common exclusion entitled “Exclusion: Damage To Work Performed By Subcontractors On Your Behalf” (CG2294), virtually eliminates all property damage liability for damage to the builder’s faulty work itself (drywall) and resulting damage to the builder’s non faulty work (corrosion to electrical systems, copper piping, HVAC, and other metal fixtures).

Existing case law in many states has resulted in claim denials for construction defect under the theory that property damage to a builder’s work is not considered to be an “occurrence” or accident and thus the policy should not act as a warranty. Therefore, the end result in these states is the same as the application of exclusion CG2294.

However, General Liability coverage under the builder’s insurance policy will still likely apply to property damage to contents and bodily injury claims by occupants. Since most lawsuit papers are likely to allege at least some covered damages, coverage will still be triggered for the entire legal defense for all claims at the expense of the insurance carrier.

As concerns drywall subcontractors, their General Liability policies will not cover property damage to their work (drywall) but will cover resulting property damage to other parts of the house and contents. Their policy will also cover bodily injury to occupants. In addition, their policy will likely trigger a full legal defense of all claims.

Assuming that both the builder and drywall sub have General Liability insurance in force continuously from the completion of the job to the filing of the lawsuit papers, their combined policies won’t likely cover the cost to tear out and replace the drywall. Such a repair job represents a huge undertaking and will be very expensive.

US Suppliers And Chinese Manufacturers

US suppliers of Chinese drywall will undoubtedly participate in these lawsuits with both builders and drywall subs. Plans for class action lawsuits are already under way. Under a worst case scenario, some US suppliers may run out of general aggregate limits under their General Liability policies and it is unlikely that Chinese manufacturers will share in these claims due to the difficulties in enforcing judgments against foreign manufacturers.

Builders can protect themselves from future construction defect and pollution claims by implementing the following practices:

* Implement mandatory subcontractor agreements with all subs including insurance requirements for General Liability, hold harmless/indemnification provision, and a requirement for all subs to participate in arbitration proceedings.

* If the builder’s General Liability policy includes the Exclusion-Damage To Your Work Performed By Subcontractors On Your Behalf (CG2294) or a similar exclusion, find out if the insurance carrier provides a buyback for an additional premium charge.

* Ask the insurance agent if any insurance carriers are available that don’t use exclusion CG2294 or have a less severe version that covers resulting property damage to the builder’s non faulty work.

* Purchase a Pollution Liability policy.

Source: John Sadler

A Minnesota builder settled a lawsuit where it was alleged that defective foundation construction was the cause of death of a 10 year old girl and not the tornado itself.

The 2006 tornado carved a six mile path of destruction and injured six people and damaged 340 homes.

I have no idea about the settlement details but it seems that it would have been difficult to prove that the defective construction was the proximate cause of the injury during a tornado. Nevertheless, this category of lawsuit sends a warning signal to builders who are not in compliance with building codes dealing with wind damage in hurricane and tornado prone areas.

Source:   Startribune

According to a January 14 edition of Insurance Journal Magazine, dramatic increases or decreases in residential and commercial building activity growth could trigger a rise in construction defect or Workers’ Compensation claims.

States that are noted to be in the danger zone for underwriters based on dramatic decreases in contruction activity growth include NJ, KY, LA, FL, and MS.

While the article does not speculate the reasons for such increased losses due to changes in growth, two common reasons are most often cited by other experts. A rapid increase in construction growth is normally associated with an increase in construction defect claims due to an influx of inexperienced contractors in the market. A rapid decrease in construction growth is normally associated with an increase in Workers’ Compensation claims because workers often become disgruntled due to layoffs or cut backs and file Workers’ Compensation claims in retaliation as a way to make up for income loss.