Defining What Constitutes an Occurrence to Trigger a Policy, Determining Whether Endorsements or Exclusions Apply, Resolving Construction Defect Claims, and the Interplay with Performance Bonds

February 24, 2015 11:40am

Chuck Numbers
Partner
Meredith, Weinstein & Numbers, LLP

Steven Cvitanovic
Partner
Haight Brown and Bonesteel LLP

Irene Yesowitch
Managing Partner
Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson LLP

Jay Russell Sever
Partner, Insurance and Reinsurance Group
Phelps Dunbar LLP

  • What constitutes an occurrence to trigger an insurance policy?
    • How are the courts defining an occurrence?
    • Single v. multiple occurrences
  • Continuing loss issue
    • Having a loss continue over several years through several different policy periods
    • From insurance standpoint, how do you handle the policies? Are all policies triggered or is only one policy triggered?
    • How some states allow you to trigger all of the policies or one policy
  • Reviewing trends on property damage
    • How are the courts handling property damage and what is covered/not covered?
    • What are the distinctions between defective/non defective work in different jurisdictions?
    • How are states treating property damage for the purposes of general liability?
    • Coverage implications on property damage v. negligence/faulty work
  • Rip and tear doctrine
    • Determining whether CGL policies provide coverage for rip and tear doctrine
    • Disputes on whether ripping out good work to get to defective work is covered within CGL policies
    • Determining whether the rip and tear damage should be considered property damage and covered under an insurance policy; what are the jurisdictional differences?
  • Eleventh Circuit’s decision regarding definition of property damage and the manner it was construed
    • Reviewing the exclusion to determining whether coverage is provided for type of property damage
    • Property damage consistent with exclusion
  • Beacon v. Skidmore, Merrill & Owings
    • Architect owed a duty of care to prospective homeowners separate from the Right to Repair Act
    • SB800 California’s Right to Repair Act – suing the architect for defects
    • Liberty Mutual – California Appellate Court cases dealing with SB800 Right to Repair Act and whether it’s the sole remedy in construction defect litigation
  • Litigation surrounding defective building products
    • Products not performing as expected
    • Allegations around builders of residential homes
    • Dealing with foreign manufacturers
  • D.R. Sherry – construction defect could be an occurrence; addressing exclusions such as business risk exclusions