Contractor General Liability Insurance And Workers´ Compensation Insurance Savings Up To 38%!

On March 9, 2011, The SC Supreme Court granted a petition for rehearing on the controversial Crossmann v. Harleysville decision, which was the subject matter of two prior blogs.

Hopefully, the SC Supreme Ct. will reverse its prior, unfortunate decision that not only perverted the intent of the drafters of the General Liability policy, but also insulted builders by stating that property damage which results from faulty construction is always expected and intended.

Oral arguments will be held on May 23, 2011. Expect the insurance industry to be opposed by various contractor trade associations.

Stay tuned.

Decision Detrimental to Builders And Homeowners In South Carolina                                                                                                           

In the recent SC Supreme Court case of Crossmann v. Harleysville filed on January 7, 2011, the SC Supreme Court ruled that faulty workmanship which results in property damage to a builder’s work is no accident. Instead, such property damage is intended, foreseen, expected, and a natural and probable consequence of the builder’s faulty workmanship. Therefore, faulty workmanship does not rise to the level of an “occurrence” and as a result is not covered by a builder’s General Liability policy. 

The end result of Crossmann is that builders won’t be able to get construction defect coverage and homeowners will be left uncompensated when builders don’t have the assets to make repairs “out of pocket”. However, there is some hope that the insurance industry will develop a new endorsement to counter the Crossmann line of “no occurrence claim denials”. In addition, a bill is being drafted in the South Carolina legislature to do the same.

Summary Of “Occurrence” Requirement In Crossmann

In order for construction defect coverage to exist for a builder under a General Liability policy, the first hurdle to be cleared is that the claim must be the result of an “occurrence”. The policy defines “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions”. In other words, the term “occurrence” is generally synonymous with “accident”.

In a prior blog, it was explained how the SC Supreme Court finally got it right in its Auto Owners v. Newman decision where it held that the resulting property damage from faulty construction was an “occurrence” under the General Liability policy. In the Auto Owners case, the court held that the defective application of stucco in itself was not an “occurrence”; however, the resulting continuous moisture intrusion to the walls and exterior sheathing resulting from the subcontractor’s negligence was an “occurrence” since it was unexpected and not intended.

Unfortunately, in Crossmann, the SC Supreme Court flip flopped and decided that it erred in the Auto Owners v. Newman case to the extent that the prior finding of an “occurrence” did not take into account the fortuity (chance) component of an “accident” but instead relied upon the “continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions” part of the definition in isolation. Crossmann clarifies that an “occurrence” must be unintended, unforeseen, and fortuitous.

In addition, the court in Crossmann made the following statements:

* “… in analyzing whether a claim is covered under a CGL policy, we first focus on whether there has been an ‘occurrence’… we then look to whether there has been ‘property damage’ as defined by the policy.” 

* “In finding no ‘occurrence’, we need not determine whether there is “property damage” and we believe to address this issue creates unnecessary confusion.”

* “To provide coverage under these circumstances would transform the CGL policy into a performance bond.”

* In footnote (5), distinctions are drawn between tort actions (damages to property of a third party or injury to a person) and contractual actions (faulty workmanship that damages only the insured’s project). It is implied that contractual liability does not result in an occurrence, but tort liability does. The standard CGL policy “does not cover an accident of faulty workmanship, but rather faulty workmanship which causes an accident”.

Is Property Damage Resulting From Faulty Workmanship Always Intended And Expected? 

The ruling in this case is an insult to the many professional builders that I’ve advised and insured over the past 25 years. For those builder clients that have had construction defect claims filed against them, to say that they intended and expected the construction problem to arise is not true in the majority of cases. Many of the claims were frivolous lawsuits where the true cause of the problem was lack of routine maintenance on the part of the homeowner such as lack of caulking. Other claims resulted from the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) and similar products where the builder had no reason to believe that such products would ultimately be found to be inherently defective. However, the majority of the claims were caused by unknowing mistakes in the construction process where the builder certainly didn’t expect a problem to arise. 

Can Faulty Workmanship Be An Accident?

Can property damage to a contractor’s work caused by faulty workmanship occur accidentally? Or is such property damage always the natural and probable (intended) consequence of faulty workmanship and thus not an accident? In Crossmann, the court ruled the latter. But, is this correct? I don’t think that it is. 

The Independent Insurance Agents And Brokers Association (IIABA) prepared a well thought out response to this issue in a 2006 publication entitled the “No Occurrence Claim Denial”. To follow is an overview of the findings of the IIABA faculty as regards the issue of the validity of the “no occurrence claim denial”.

When The “No Occurrence Claim Denial” Is Valid (Deliberate, Shoddy Work)

* Contractor’s deliberate use of substandard materials, violation of local building codes, breach of the construction contract, disregard for design specifications, or use of substandard construction practices so that faulty workmanship is or should have been foreseeable and expected.

* When “fly by night” contractors enter a disaster area such as after a hurricane and perform shoddy repairs by cutting corners to maximize profit and then make a quick exit. This is a deliberate act of faulty workmanship and such contractors know that their work will fail 

* When work is subbed to a contractor who is known to be incompetent or who has a poor track record of past problems. In such cases, it is a reasonable certainty that defective construction will be an “ordinary or natural consequence”.

When The “No Occurrence Claim Denial” Is Not Valid (Ordinary Negligence)

* Most contractors want to make a profit and understand that their reputation is important to this goal. With this in mind, no contractor would intentionally engage in faulty workmanship or expect that its work product would deteriorate. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that faulty workmanship was negligently and accidentally caused. 

* In “Hot Topics Involving Liability Insurance Coverage”, Clifford J. Shapiro explains “Acts that cause construction defects normally are undertaken with the intent to perform the work properly, but unknowingly are performed improperly by mistake. The property damage that results from these mistakes is therefore neither intended nor expected by the contractor performing the work. Accordingly, property damage that arises out of construction defects should be considered ‘accidental’ and held to qualify as an ‘occurrence’ under the CGL insurance policy.” 

Crossmann Disregards Intent Of Drafters Of General Liability Policy Form 

The drafters of the General Liability policy form, Insurance Services Office (ISO), designed the policy form to provide a broad grant of coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” in the initial insuring agreement. Then, the design called for a list of policy exclusions to whittle away coverage for various uninsurable risks such as business risks. Furthermore, it was intended that various policy endorsements could be tacked onto the policy form to further alter coverage.

In order for coverage to be triggered for a construction defect claim, the incident must first be considered to be “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” before the impact of various property damage exclusions can be considered. The Crossmann case, in ruling that construction defect cases are not an “occurrence”, cuts off all subsequent discussion of the property damage exclusions and special property damage endorsements. This is a distortion because it was the intent of the drafters of the General Liability policy, Insurance Services Office (ISO), to control which types of property damage claims are or are not covered through the exclusions section of the policy. In addition, various insurance carriers draft special policy endorsements to clarify their intent on paying these claims.

Insurance Industry Already Provides Solution For Carriers To Avoid Construction Defect Claims 

In a free market, insurance carriers should be able to decide whether or not to write General Liability policies for builders as well as their approach to coverage for construction defect claims. Some may want to exclude all property damage arising from construction defect and others may want to provide total or partial coverage. The design of the General Liability policy allows this flexibility through the use of special policy endorsements to alter or clarify the coverages of the basic policy form.

Carriers that wish to insure contractors, but avoid paying construction defect claims, merely need to add the ISO policy endorsement entitled “Exclusion – Damage To Your Work Performed By Subcontractors On Your Behalf” (CG2294). This endorsement has been in widespread use since 2004 and has proven to be very effective in denying construction defect claims.

In my opinion, the reason why the carriers are not satisfied with CG2294 is because they can’t use it to address construction defect claims that arose before the widespread use of the endorsement in 2004. Instead, their only option to escape responsibility for these claims is to pursue the “no occurrence claim denial” strategy.

 At the present time, several carriers in South Carolina are using special property damage endorsements that they drafted to provide partial coverage to builders for construction defect claims. Most of these endorsements take the form of excluding coverage for property damage to the faulty work itself, but providing coverage for resulting property damage to non faulty work. Many within the building community think that this is an acceptable compromise. 

Summary

The Crossmann decision creates a fiction that builders always intend or expect the property damage that results from even unknowing faulty construction. It also subverts the General Liability policy form drafter’s intent of basic policy construction, as well as the ability of insurance carriers to alter or clarify the coverage of the basic policy form through the use of special property damage endorsements.

The line of “no occurrence claim denial” cases should be remedied by the drafting of a new “occurrence” clarification endorsement by Insurance Services Office (ISO) or by individual carriers. Such an endorsement should clarify that continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition(s) shall constitute an “occurrence”, and that there is no additional or accompanying requirement of an accident or fortuitous event to constitute an “occurrence”. If ISO or individual carriers don’t voluntarily address this problem, state legislatures will attempt to pass contractor friendly legislation that will go way beyond remedying the “no occurrence claim denial” strategy.

 John M. Sadler

Sadler & Company, Inc.

Sources: IIABA, “No Occurrence Claim Denial”, 2006; House Bill 10-1394, 67th Colorado General Assembly

“The property loss from Chinese drywall could exceed every U.S. hurricane except Katrina and Andrew”. 

The complaints received by the Consumer Products Safety Commission show that the impact of Chinese drywall will be widespread.  Between 2004-2006, an estimated 500 million pounds of tainted drywall came into the United States.  It is quite possible that the tainted drywall is now in more than 100,000 homes.  The tainted drywall supplies have affected all but 12 states, with the greatest problems occurring in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Virginia. 

“Based on $80 per square foot (the lowest cost from the verdicts made public) in 100,000 homes with an average of 2,200 square feet per house, the loss would be $18 billion in property damage”. 

The damaging health effects of having to live with the drywall have not been discussed, but the potential for property damage/claims alone are catastrophic. 

Source:  http://www.iiaba.net/IAMag/NewsViews/052010.html

In the case at hand, a contractor that was hired to build new piers for a house accidentally allowed the house to fall off the piers resulting in $26,000 in damages.

The Connecticut Superior Court ruled that the business risk exclusion is applicable to deny coverage.  This exclusion, which is Exclusion L under the ISO General Liability form reads “Property damage to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations” hazard.

The purpose of this exclusion is to give the contractors incentive to be careful while performing operations.  In this case, the court reasoned that the entire home was being directly worked upon.

Source:  http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2010/01/21/106738.htm

A Brief History

The building industry is constantly experimenting with new building products and techniques in an effort to reduce costs, become more efficient, and to add value. Sometimes these products don’t stand the test of time as unforeseen problems may arise that result in construction defects. Examples include EIFS or synthetic stucco, Masonite siding, Georgia Pacific siding, polybutylene plumbing, and more recently, Chinese drywall.

The full weight of the construction defect crisis began to be felt by the insurance industry about ten years ago. Regionally, in the Southeast, the first wave of large-scale lawsuits arose over EIFS. The insurance industry fully funded a plaintiff attorney’s “gravy train” in this area since most of the costs were covered by General Liability insurance policies of manufacturers, distributors, builders, and installers. The EIFS epidemic, with its readily available funding source (General Liability carriers), seemed to fuel the spread of construction defect claims of all different types.

As a result, two trends emerged. The first was that most insurance carriers left the market and refused to write General Liability insurance for builders since they reasoned they couldn’t make a profit at any premium level. The second was that those few that remained in the market decided that they did not want to be a funding source for the next wave of construction defect lawsuits. In response, the insurance industry adopted an array of exclusionary endorsement forms from which carriers could pick and choose to limit their risk.

To follow is a listing and brief commentary of commonly found exclusions that can severely impact coverage for builders. In addition, solutions are provided where applicable.

Synthetic Stucco (EIFS) Exclusion: If you’re a builder and you install or repair EIFS, you need to buy a special General Liability policy from the high-risk marketplace to cover this type of work.

Soil Movement Exclusion: Expansive soils have been a problem in some parts of the country and have been a major source of construction defect lawsuits. Its possible to pick up coverage for this exposure through the use of certain home owner’s warranty products such as HBW 2-10.

Fungus, Mold, And Mildew Exclusion: This exclusion was added almost immediately to most General Liability policies when toxic mold lawsuits began to first appear. This strategy proved to be effective in cutting off what many feared to be the next “gravy train” of construction defect litigation. Most versions of this exclusion only eliminate coverage for the “property damage” portion of the lawsuit but leave coverage in place for “bodily injury”. If you’re concerned about this exclusion, you can purchase a special Mold And Pollution Liability policy from the high risk insurance market. The minimum premiums start out in the $2,500 to $5,000 range and prices increase according to your sales.

Absolute Pollution Exclusion: This is a powerful exclusion that can have consequences beyond what you normally think of as pollution. This is exemplified in the recently emerging Chinese drywall crisis where its alleged that drywall from certain plants in China release noxious fumes that cause corrosion of metal in a home, a foul smelling odor, and health problems. The insurance carriers plan on denying these claims by using the Absolute Pollution Exclusion. Pollution is broadly defined under this exclusion as any solid, liquid, or gaseous contaminant or irritant. Once again, if you are concerned about this exposure, you can buy a special Pollution Liability policy through the high risk marketplace.

Prior Completed Operations Exclusion: The standard General Liability policy form normally picks up coverage for building operations completed prior to the start of the policy term as long as the covered “property damage” or “bodily injury” occurs during the policy term. However, with the addition of the Prior Completed Operations Exclusion, coverage for prior completed operations is eliminated. This presents a problem because the General Liability forms from the prior years don’t pick up this coverage to the extent that the “property damage” or “bodily injury” occurs after the expiration of the prior policy terms. Some versions of this endorsement limit its scope to “property damage” only. You may want to attempt to negotiate the elimination of this endorsement if it appears on your policy.

Products / Completed Operations Exclusion: This exclusion has perhaps the most devastating impact of any of the construction defect exclusions. Quite simply, this exclusion eliminates coverage for all “bodily injury” and “property damage” that occurs after the home has been sold. In my opinion, this exclusion is unacceptable for a builder under any circumstances resulting in the need to find a new insurance carrier.

Property Damage To Your Work Exclusion: This exclusion is not a stand alone exclusion like the rest that have been mentioned. Instead, it is part of the regular General Liability policy form and appears as exclusion L. This exclusion eliminates coverage for “property damage” to your “work” arising out of it…. However, there is an important exception where coverage is given back if the damaged work was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor. This exception is what historically gave builders (that were general contractors) broad coverage under their own General Liability policy for construction defect claims.

Exclusion: Damage To Your Work Performed By Subcontractors On Your Behalf (CG2294): Around 2004, most carriers began adding this exclusion to builder’s General Liability policies to eliminate the favorable coverage exception that was granted to builders (that were general contractors) under the Property Damage To Your Work Exclusion listed above. The presence of CG2294 eliminates coverage for construction defect claims. If CG2294 appears on your policy, there are two viable solutions. First, ask if your carrier has a “buyback” of the lost coverage for an additional premium charge. Second, search for a carrier that has a less severe version of this exclusion that only eliminates coverage for “property damage” to the faulty work itself but not to resulting “property damage” to the non-faulty work.

Unfavorable Case Law 

In order to have a favorable claim outcome, builders not only have to avoid the above mentioned exclusions, but also must not fall victim to unfavorable case law. Nationally, a number of courts have ruled that a contractor’s General Liability policy does not cover “property damage” to either faulty work or resulting non-faulty work under the theory that such damages don’t constitute an “occurrence”. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled similarly in the road contractor case of L-J vs Bituminous. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court recently clarified its ruling for builders in the Auto Owners vs Newman rehearing. In this case, the court ruled that “property damage” to non-faulty work is an “occurrence” and thus subject to coverage (unless otherwise excluded). This is a mostly favorable ruling for builders in South Carolina but is still an overall coverage reduction to the extent that coverage is precluded for property damage to the faulty work itself.

Risk Management

Builders must employ aggressive risk management techniques to protect against out of pocked losses due to policy exclusions and unfavorable case law. Examples of such techniques include contractual transfer of risks to subcontractors (ex: hold harmless / indemnification provision and insurance requirements), the use of home owner warranties, thorough documentation of construction files, and being proactive in dispute resolution.

Many residential contractors have filed or will file for bankruptcy protection as a result of the economic downturn of 2008-2009. With this in mind, I came across an excellent article on bankruptcy from the contractor’s perspective.

This article was written by my friend, attorney John McCants, who specializes in defending contractors on behalf of their General Liability insurance carrier as well as in bankruptcy law.

John’s article reviews bankruptcy under Chapter 7 (liquidation), Chapter 11 (reorganization), and Chapter 13 (reorganization). In addition, it address the following contractor related issues:

* The impact of bankruptcy filing on a contractors General Liability policy which is considered to be an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In some cases, a General Liability policy may be the most significant asset of a bankruptcy estate if a claim is pending. As a general rule, just because such a policy may be the property of the bankruptcy estate does not preclude the payment of a claim under such a policy to the claimant.

* The impact of bankruptcy filing on a performance or surety bond in the event of default. Here is the normal chain of events: contractor enters into a contract and procures a performance or surety bond; contractor does not finish the job; bond company steps in the shoes of contractor and completes job; bond company then subrogates against contractor for reimbursement. But……. how can the bond company subrogate against the contractor that has filed for bankruptcy protection? The courts usually rule that the bonding company has priority over bankruptcy creditors.

* The impact of Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing after a home owner or project owner has entered into a construction contract. In other words, can the home owner or project owner discontinue the contract? The answer is, that it depends on several factors which are outlined in the article!

* The impact of an arbitration clause in a construction contract where the contractor has filed for bankruptcy. Courts typically rule that an arbitration clause is enforceable under such circumstances.

For more information: John L. McCants, Ellis Lawhorne & Sims, P.A., Bankruptcy Law: Fundamentals For The Construction Law Practitioner,
John Sadler

• W-2′s (employee payrolls)
• 1099′s (subcontractor payrolls)
• ledger statements
• certificates of insurance on your subcontractors (please make sure that the policy effective and expiration dates on your subcontractor’s certificate are in line with the dates of their service; sometimes you will need to have more than one certificate on your subcontractor).
• Job duties of your employees and subcontractors — this is needed to make sure that they are properly classified according to insurance rules and regulations