I did a presentation on types of insurance for construction projects outside of builder’s risk insurance.   The presentation briefly discussed insurance beyond commercial general liability, commercial automobile liability, and workers compensation and employer’s liability insurance.

There are many other insurance products that are relied on and needed to cover the MANY risks that contractors face when dealing with a construction project.   Insurance is a major part of construction to cover risk and making sure you have the RIGHT insurance to cover the risks you face on a construction project cannot be understated.

When drafting and negotiating a construction contract, it is important to spend time on the insurance requirements including consulting with your insurance broker and lawyer to make sure the right language is included and/or you have the requested insurance.

[gview file=”https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Interplay-Among-BR-CGL-and-Wrap-Up.pptx”]

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.


A statutory bad faith claim against an insurer is derived from Florida Statute s. 624.155.  A bad faith claim against a first party insurer, such as a property insurer, must be statutory.  Check out the hyperlink of the statute, but a party must first file a Civil Remedy Notice identifying the statutory violations to preserve the statutory bad faith claim giving the insurer an opportunity to cure.

In a noteworthy case, Cooper v. Federated National Insurance Company, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2961a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt with the jury instruction for an insured’s statutory bad faith claim against their property insurer.  The insured filed a bad faith claim predicated on the property insurer violating the provisions of Florida Statute s. 626.9541(1)(i)3, which involves unfair claim settlement practices.  The insured had a jury trial and submitted a proposed jury instruction regarding bad faith that tracked the very essence of their bad faith claim and was modeled after s. 626.9541(1)(i)(3).  The trial court, however, denied this jury instruction, instead adopting a standard jury instruction for bad faith.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of the property insurer and the insured appealed arguing it was reversible error for the trial court NOT to present to the jury their bad faith jury instruction.  The Fifth District agreed and ordered a new trial finding that the trial court’s failure to present the jury instruction amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

Florida’s standard bad faith jury instruction is not the be-all-end-all of jury instructions for bad faith. Specifically for a statutory bad faith claim, the standard jury instruction would not fully model a party’s theory of bad faith which would be modeled after a statutory violation.  The lack of a proper jury instruction is not compensated for by an attorney’s closing argument as to the insured’s theory of the case:

Leaving it to the parties’ attorneys to explain to the jury in closing argument what legal principles apply is an inadequate substitute for an accurate, relevant, and complementary instruction that contains legal principles not covered in a standard instruction.  Contrary to [the property insurer’s] argument, we do not believe that the standard bad faith jury instruction sufficiently informed the jury of all the relevant law regarding bad faith. Nor do we believe that, under the facts of this case, the acts constituting a violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)3. were subsumed within the standard jury instruction.

Cooper, supra (internal quotations omitted).

A jury instruction is important and is nothing to sneeze at.  Here, the Fifth District thought so as it reversed a jury’s verdict finding that the failure to include a bad faith jury instruction that modeled the theory of the case and specific statutory violations the insured was aiming to prove was reversible error.


Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.




Recently, I wrote an article on the importance of cyber liability insurance for design professionals.  The reality, however, is that this is important insurance for all professionals in today’s day and age.  


A modern, online insurance broker called Embroker was kind enough to submit a guest post on cyber liability insurance.  Check it out!!!




By:  Charles Bohanan, Embroker 


According to the Cybersecurity Ventures Report, the cost of cybercrime could reach $6 trillion by 2021. That same report predicts that cybercrime will expand into new sectors, such as the construction industry. Assuming your construction business has moved beyond pencil and paper drawings, paper invoices and mailed checks, this prediction is cause for concern. In fact, it’s already come true, as the 2013 Target cyber breach which led to a $39 million court settlement came through a HVAC contractor, a development which underscores the need for Cyber Liability insurance.


Considering the numerous issues facing construction business owners — from budget and time constraints to production methods to fire hazards — Cyber Liability insurance may seem like a low priority. But f you expect to stay in business and be profitable, that’s simply not the case.


Why Cybercriminals target construction businesses


The cybersecurity systems of small and mid-sized businesses aren’t as robust as big firms, which makes them an easier target for hackers. A construction project in the wrong hands can wreak havoc for both your client and your heard-earned reputation as a contractor. Hackers could steal:


● sensitive or proprietary data and assets

● subcontractor data or financials

● banking and financial accounts

● intellectual property

● employee information (Social Security numbers, bank account data, etc.)


At the most basic level, you can make sure your firewalls are enabled and updated, train employees on security protocols, secure your company’s network, and change passwords regularly — but these things are not enough.


Understanding Cyber Liability insurance


Like other kinds of insurance, cyber liability insurance is a must for small and medium enterprises, because just one cyberattack is often enough to put such firms out of business.


Good insurance is never one size fits all, so there are a number of innovative coverage options to consider. Some of the more popular forms of risk management insurance include:


First Party Insurance: These policies take care of most related expenses if your network is compromised by unauthorized access, a data breach, hacktivists (social activist hackers), or otherwise. Additionally, most of these cyber security policies also cover forensic and legal services related to the breach itself, mandatory notification costs, fraud monitoring services, and other direct costs. Many indirect costs, such as reputation management and vendor costs, are covered as well.



Third Party Insurance: These cyber liability insurance policies protect your business from judgements related to a security breach, whether the lawsuits are from customers, partners, or shareholders. Third party insurance also covers privacy and network security matters.


Most construction companies need both these policies.


An insurance broker will identify your specific risks and needs and tailor the cyber insurance coverage to them. A good broker not only offers the right policy, but also helps you understand the risks you are dealing with, as well as the legal and regulatory background. Be sure your broker has IT professionals and lawyers in house, or at least works closely with them, and has a deep understanding of your industry, and most importantly — where you’re going as a company.


Using technology can certainly help your construction business grow, but it also makes it vulnerable. Contrary to popular belief, small construction companies have no special immunity due to the type of business, size, or because they do not use new technology “that much.” Luckily, that same technology can also help you reach to the right team of people that can help you without the problems normally associated with cyber liability insurance. A modern insurance tech solutions broker has a platform that finds which insurance policies are best for you and compares policies across your industry to thoroughly understand your company, so you get tailored insurance coverage with less guesswork. 


shutterstock_540587629As you know, insurance is an important part of risk assessment for many, many business needs.  Oftentimes, an insured relies on an insurance broker or agent to procure specific insurance to meet its express business objectives and risks.  Notably, there is a potential negligence claim associated with an insurance agent or broker’s negligent procurement of insurance for an insured.  While this is not the easiest claim to prove, a recent Third District case explained this standard:


It is well settled that “where an insurance agent or broker undertakes to obtain insurance coverage for another person and fails to do so, he may be held liable for resulting damages for . . . negligence.  More specifically, and as applicable here, “[a]n agent is required to use reasonable skill and diligence, and liability may result from a negligent failure to obtain coverage which is specifically requested or clearly warranted by the insured’s expressed needs.”  As explained by our sister court, “[t]his general duty requires the agent to exercise due care in correctly advising the insured of the existence and availability of particular insurance, including the availability and desirability of obtaining higher limits, depending on the scope of the agents undertaking.” 

Kendall South Medical Center, Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Nation, Inc., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1071a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (internal quotations omitted).



In this case, a leak occurred on commercial leased premises.  The commercial tenant had a property insurance policy that provided $100,000 of coverage for the physical improvements and contents of the property.  However, there was a 90% coinsurance provision.  A coinsurance provision shifts risk to the insured when the insured purchases less coverage than the value of the property. 


As a result of the coinsurance provision, the insured only received a fraction of its damages, and less than the $100,000 in coverage.    The insured, however, claimed it was under the belief it would recover $100,000 in insurance proceeds as that was what it told its agent it needed.  The insured sued its insurance agent claiming the agent’s failure to advise it that the procured policy did not address its expressed insurance needs. “[W]hen an insured alleges that it specifically communicated its insurance needs to an agent who then undertook to procure a policy addressing such needs, the insured states a cause of action for negligent procurement where it also alleges that, without providing an explanation that different coverage was required, the agent procured a policy not meeting those expressed needs.”  Kendall South Medical Center, supra.


Perhaps this could have been avoided had the insured reviewed the specific terms of the insurance policy.  Perhaps there are e-mails or other records where the insurance agent explained that the coverage the insured was seeking could not be procured without a coinsurance provision that shifted the risk to the insured.  Know your insurance and know the risks and coverage afforded to you!


Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.


imagesEquitable subrogation is a doctrine that liability insurers rely on when paying a claim on behalf of an insured.  Under this doctrine, the insurer equitably subrogates—steps in the shoes—to the rights of the insured and sues as an equitable subrogee of the insured in order to seek reimbursement for the claim it paid.


What if the liability insurer tried to pursue an equitable subrogation claim against the federal government?  In other words, what if the insurer paid out insurance proceeds on behalf of its insured-prime contractor and then tried to recoup the insurance proceeds from the federal government as an equitable subrogee of the prime contractor?  The United States Court of Federal Claims in Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters v. U.S., 2014 WL 6491835 (Fed.Cl. 2014) explained that a liability insurer CANNOT sue the federal government as an equitable subrogee of the prime contractor in order to recoup insurance proceeds paid out on a claim.


In this case, the government hired a prime contractor to abate asbestos at a post office.  The prime contractor was having difficulty obtaining CGL liability insurance to specifically cover asbestos removal for a reasonable premium and the government, through the contracting officer, agreed to execute an addendum to the prime contract that required the government to save harmless and indemnify the contractor from personal injury claims attributable to the asbestos removal work.


More than ten years later, a former government employee sued the prime contractor claiming he contracted cancer from his exposure to asbestos while it was being removed and abated at the project.  The prime contractor demanded that the government defend and indemnify it for this claim; however, the government refused.  The prime contractor then tendered the claim to its CGL liability insurer and its insurer settled the claim.  After the settlement, the prime contractor once again demanded that the government reimburse it by honoring the indemnification language in the addendum; again, the government refused.


The prime contractor’s liability insurer then filed suit against the federal government as the equitable subrogee of the prime contractor in order to recoup the insurance proceeds it paid to the former government employee.  The thrust of the claim was that the government breached the indemnification provision.  The government moved to dismiss the lawsuit contending that the Court of Federal Claims does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the lawsuit because the liability insurer is not in privity with the government and, therefore, cannot sue the government.  The Court of Federal Claims agreed and dismissed the lawsuit.  Why? Because a plaintiff suing the federal government on a contract claim must be in privity of contract with the federal government with limited exceptions to this rule:


The Federal Circuit has recognized limited exceptions to the requirement that parties seeking relief for breach of contract against the government under the Tucker Act must be in privity of contract with the United States. These limited exceptions include (1) actions against the United States by an intended third-party beneficiary; (2) pass-through suits by a subcontractor where the prime contractor is liable to the subcontractor for the subcontractor’s damages; and (3) actions by a Miller Act surety for funds that the government improperly disbursed to a prime contractor [after the surety financed completion of a defaulted subcontractor]. As the court of appeals has observed, the common thread that unites these exceptions is that the party standing outside of privity by contractual obligation stands in the shoes of a party within privity.

Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, supra(internal quotations and citations omitted).


Since none of the limited exceptions applied to allow a liability insurer to sue the government as an equitable subrogee of its insured-prime contractor, the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction.


This ruling does not prevent the prime contractor from suing the government directly for breaching the indemnification provision; it simply prevents the liability insurer from suing as an equitable subrogee of the prime contractor. Even though the insurer paid the claim, perhaps it can enter into an agreement with the prime contractor whereby the prime contractor sues the government directly for breach of contract.



The case demonstrates the limited exceptions available to a claimant on a construction project that wants to pursue a claim directly against the government when the claimant is not the prime contractor hired by the government.  While prime contractors can sue the government for breach of contract, subcontractors, in particular, that want to pursue a claim against the government can only do so as a pass-through claim, meaning they are suing in the name of the prime contractor and will require the cooperation of the prime contractor.


Also, as an aside, the indemnification provision from the government and the prime contractor required the government to save harmless and indemnify the prime contractor.  I always like to include the word “defend” in an indemnification provision so it is crystal clear that the indemnitor’s indemnification obligations extend to its contractual obligation to defend the indemnitees for any claim.


Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.


images-1Owners, contractors, and subcontractors, etc. need to understand the liability insurance coverage they maintain so that in event of a claim relating to bodily injury or property damage they know whether there is potential coverage for the claim.  Not only does this include understanding the exclusions in the policies, but also understanding endorsements that may further restrict or modify coverage.


CGL policies contain a pollution exclusion that excludes environmental pullutants / contaminants (as it has been referred to as an absolute pollution exclusion). If an entity requires the type of insurance to cover potential environmental liabilities, there is pollution liability insurance that can be procured, but this is separate from the CGL policy.


Although not a construction dispute, the recent case of Endurance American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Savits-Daniel Travel Centes, Inc., 2014 WL 2600071 (S.D.Fla. 2014), illustrates the general application of the pollution exclusion in a personal injury situation.  In this case, a woman was at a bar and was exposed to pepper spray causing her to fall and fatally hit her head. Her estate sued the owner of the premises and the owner tendered the claim to its CGL carrier.  The carrier denied coverage and an action for declaratory relief ensued to determine whether the CGL carrier was responsible for a duty to defend and indemnify.  The issue in the case was whether the pepper spray constituted a pollutant; if it was a pollutant, then bodily injury arising out of the pepper spray pollutant was excluded from coverage.


The policy contained the following language (common to CGL policies):


2. Exclusions This insurance does not apply to:

* * * *

f. Pollution

(1) “Bodily injury” or “property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “pollutants”:

(a) At or from any premises, site or location which is or was at any time owned or occupied by, or rented or loaned to, any insured.

* * * *


* * * *

15. “Pollutants” 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.


In addition, there was an endorsement that further restricted coverage known as the Mold, Fungus, Bacteria, Virus, and Organic Pathogen Exclusion:”



This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:




It is hereby agreed that this policy shall not apply:

1. to “bodily injury”, “property damage”, or “personal and advertising injury”;

2. to damages for devaluation of property or for the taking, use or acquisition or interference with the rights of others in property or air space;

3. to any loss, cost or expense, including but not limited to fines and penalties, arising out of any governmental direction or request, or any private party or citizen action, that an insured test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize “organic pathogens”; or

4. to any “suit” or administrative or regulatory procedure or process in which an insured may be involved as a party;

arising, directly or indirectly, or in concurrence or in any sequence out of or in any way relating to actual, alleged or threatened existence, discharge, dispersal, release or escape of “organic pathogens,” whether or not such actual, alleged or threatened existence, discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden, accidental or gradual in nature.


This insurance shall not apply to any “bodily injury”, “property damage”, “personal and advertising injury”, loss, cost or expense arising out of or in any way related to any form of “organic pathogens,” whether or not such actual, alleged or threatened existence, discharge, dispersal, release or escape is intentionally caused, or whether or not such injury, damage, devaluation, cost or expense is expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.


Organic pathogen” means any organic irritant or contaminant, including but not limited to mold, fungus, bacteria or virus, including but not limited to their byproducts, such as mycotoxins, mildew, or biogenic aerosols.



The Southern District agreed with the CGL insurer based on the exclusionary pollution language in the policy that pepper spray was a pollutant excluded from coverage.


Check your CGL policy and corresponding endorsements.  You will see the pollution exclusion.  During construction, there are certainly pollution / environmental risks that would require a contractor to obtain such insurance to cover and address these risks.  The objective is know the risks you need covered and the policies you have in place to ensure you are being covered for those risks.


Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.


images-1Additional Insured status is a vital part of risk management in construction.  I’ve previously discussed additional insured status under general liability policies in https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/understanding-your-rights-as-an-additional-insured/ and https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/make-sure-additional-insured-coverage-is-for-completed-operations/.


 The recent decision in King Cole Condominium Association, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 2014 WL 2191944 (S.D.Fla. 2014), further elaborates on additional insured status under a general liability (CGL) policy.  In this case, a condominium unit owner injured herself while the condominium was undergoing construction work.  The unit owner sued the association and the general contractor the association hired to perform the work.  As it pertained to the association, the unit owner contended that the association was negligent including being negligent for selecting the general contractor that caused her injuries.  The general contractor, as typically is the case, had a CGL policy.  The association tendered the defense of the unit owner’s claims to the contractor’s liability insurer as an additional insured; however, the insurer denied coverage. The association then sued the insurer seeking a declaratory judgment asking for the court to declare that it was an additional insured under the contractor’s policy and, thus, the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the association in the unit owner’s action against the association and general contractor.


The dispositive issue in this dispute was whether the association should qualify as an additional insured under the general contractor’s liability policy. The association claimed it was an additional insured because any liability assessed against it was directly attributable to the defective condition created by the general contractor that caused the unit owner’s injuries.  The insurer countered that the association would only qualify as an additional insured with respect to liability directly attributable to the general contractor’s performance at the condominium.


The additional insured endorsement in the contractor’s policy provided that an additional insured was:



“Any person or organization for whom the named insured has agreed by written “insured contract” to designate as an additional insured subject to all provisions and limitations of this policy …


WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability directly attributable to your performance of ongoing operations for that insured.”


The general contractor’s liability policy further contained a definition for the term “insured contract” that provided:


“f. That part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business (including an indemnification of a municipality in connection with work performed for a municipality) under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for “bodily injury” or “property damage” to a third person or organization, provided the “bodily injury” or “property damage” is caused, in whole or in part, by you or by those acting on your behalf. Tort liability means a liability that would be imposed by law in the absence of any contract or agreement.”



Based on this policy language, the Southern District stated that for the association to qualify as an additional insured under the general contractor’s policy, it must establish (a) its contract with the general contractor was an insured contract within the meaning of the policy and (2) the association only sought coverage as an additional insured under the policy regarding liability directly attributable to the general contractor’s performance, i.e., the additional insured status is for vicarious liability or negligence directly caused by the contractor for which the association was sued.  If the association failed to provide either requirement, then it failed to qualify as an additional insured.


The contract between the association and general contractor provided that the general contractor would identify the association as an additional insured.  Presumably, this contract met the definition of an insured contract within the meaning of the policy as it likely required the contractor to indemnify the association for bodily injury and property damage caused by the contractor’s performance.  Thus, the crux of whether the association qualified as an additional insured under the contractor’s policy turned on whether the unit owner was suing the association for liability directly attributable to the general contractor’s performance (i.e., vicarious liability).



To determine whether the unit owner’s claims contained allegations triggering vicarious liability, the Southern District looked to the allegations in the unit owner’s underlying complaint against the association and contractor.  In analyzing the unit’s owner complaint and finding that the association did not qualify as an additional insured, the Southern District held:



Florida law requires a claimant to specifically plead vicarious liability as a separate cause of action.  Because Satarsky’s [unit owner] complaint contains no separate cause of action for vicarious liability, the Court rejects King Cole’s [association] contention. Furthermore, even if Florida procedural law did not apply or if the separate cause of action requirement was not the law in Florida, there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that Satarsky sued King Cole for vicarious liability. To the contrary, the allegations against King Cole all relate to its own alleged negligence. Therefore, under the facts here, Mid–Continent has no duty to defend or indemnify King Cole with respect to the Satarsky lawsuit.”

King Cole Condominium Association, supra (internal citations omitted).  


This case contains a couple of important take-aways:


  • Additional insured status is not designed to protect the additional insured for its OWN negligence.  Rather, it is designed to defend and indemnify the additional insured for the negligence directly caused / attributable to the primary insured; hence, the Southern District explaining that the underlying complaint  by the unit owner needed to trigger vicarious liability such that the association was being sued for the negligence of the contractor.


  • To determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend, the court will look to the allegations in the underlying complaint.  In this instance, the underlying complaint asserted claims against the association for its own negligence, but not for  vicarious liability  associated with the negligence of the contractor.   When preparing a complaint in which a party is seeking insurance coverage, it is important to plead allegations that may give rise to potential coverage.


Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.




UnknownCommercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance and additional insured coverage play an integral role in construction defect disputes. Specifically, general contractors want to ensure that they are an additional insured under their subcontractors CGL policies. (Subcontractors that engage other subcontractors to perform a portion of their scope likewise want to be an additional insured under their subcontractors’ CGL policies.) However, just being an additional insured is not enough. The key is that a general contractor should be an additional insured for ongoing operations and, importantly, completed operations since construction defects typically arise out of completed operations.


The recent Fifth Circuit decision in Carl E. Woodward, L.L.C. v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co., 2014 WL 902575 (5th Cir. 2014), discusses additional insured coverage and the importance of additional insured coverage for completed operations. This case deals with the construction of a condominium in Mississippi. The general contractor hired a concrete subcontractor that performed work from January 2006 to October 2006 with the entire project being completed in August 2007. The general contractor was an additional insured under the concrete subcontractor’s CGL policy. Subsequent to completion, a construction defect dispute arose in arbitration that involved the concrete subcontractor’s scope of work. The concrete issues appeared to be that the subcontractor failed to properly slope concrete floors including balconies preventing water to drain and that it failed to install a step in the balcony slab at the balcony exterior walls and doors damaging exterior walls of condominium units.


The general contractor demanded that the concrete subcontractor’s CGL carrier indemnify and defend it in the dispute since it was an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy (and the CGL carrier was responsible for indemnifying / defending it due to the negligence of the primary insured-concrete subcontractor). The concrete subcontractor’s CGL carrier refused to defend the general contractor because the additional insured endorsement stated that additional insured coverage was “only with respect to liability arising out of your [primary insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for that insured.” The endorsement also provided a specific exclusion to additional insured coverage–the additional insured coverage did NOT apply to property damage occurring after all work to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured has been completed. Basically, there was NO additional insured coverage for completed operations.


The general contractor and its insurer filed suit against the concrete subcontractor’s CGL carrier. The argument was that the CGL carrier failed to indemnify and contribute to defense costs in connection with the arbitration. After trial, the district judge entered a judgment in favor of the contractor for approximately $1 Million. The Fifth Circuit reversed this judgment because the dispute arose out of completed operations for which there was no additional insured coverage owed to the general contractor.



images-1A. What does the additional insured coverage “only with respect to liability arising out of your [primary insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for that insured” mean


The Fifth Circuit (relying on Mississippi law) held that under the additional insured language for ongoing operations, liability simply needs to arise out of ongoing operations–liability needs to be causally connected to the the subcontractor’s ongoing operations. But, what exactly does this mean? To determine what this specifically means, the Fifth Circuit examined the case of Noble v. Wellington Assoc., 2013 WL 6067991 (Miss.Ct.App. 2013), that involved post-completion foundation cracks in a house attributable to the site subcontractor’s compaction (before the house was even constructed). In Noble, the court maintained:


Noble [additional insured] was only an additional insured for liability caused by Harris’s [site subcontractor] active [ongoing] work on the site and…did not cover property damage manifesting itself after Harris stopped working on the site…. [I]f Harris’s performance caused the damage for which Noble was liable, the cause was Harris’s completed work, not its ongoing operations. ” Carl E. Woodward, supra, at *6.



The Fifth Circuit further examined the Colorado case, Weitz Co., LLC v. Mid-Century Ins., Co., 181 P.3d 309 (Colo.App. 2007), whereby an owner observed water intrusion damage five months after the subcontractor completed its work. In Weitz, the court maintained:


Because the contractor’s [additional insured] liability for the water intrusion damage arose out of the subcontractor’s completed operations–the work was completed five months before the intrusion–rather than its ongoing operations, there was no coverage under the additional-insured endorsement.” Carl E. Woodward, supra, at *7.


Additionally, the Fifth Circuit maintained that the additional insured endorsement (factoring in the specific exclusion that excluded property damage occurring after all work has been completed) only provided coverage for the concrete subcontractor’s ongoing (active) operations. In other words, it does not matter when the claim is actually filed as long as the liability does not arise out of completed operations.


Typically, and even as the Fifth Circuit noted, liability for construction defects arise out of completed operations. Even if liability arose out of the concrete subcontractor’s scope of work, the liability did not arise out of the subcontractor’s active / ongoing operations, but from the completed construction (when the owner received the completed building-substantial completion). Thus, once all work is completed, the liability and damage will arise from completed operations.


B. CGL is not a performance bond


CGL insurance is not a performance bond. I repeat, CGL insurance is not a performance bond. The reason for the repetition is because oftentimes arguments are made to essentially convert CGL insurance into a performance bond. The Fifth Circuit explained the difference between these two products that insure different risks:


Allowing coverage under this [additional insured] endorsement because of an allegation that the additional insured failed to follow plans and specifications, effectively converts a CGL policy into a performance bond.
[A] performance bond is a form of insurance that guarantees the completion of the general contractor’s work on the project. This Circuit has previously noted the significance of the difference between these two forms of insurance [CGL and performance bond]: A CGL policy generally protects the insured when his work damages someone else’s property. The ‘your work’ exclusion [in the policy] prevent a CGL policy from morphing into a performance bond covering an insured’s own work.” Carl E. Woodward, supra, at *7 (internal quotations and citations omitted).


C. Take-aways


  • Take a look at the CGL policy and additional insured endorsement. There is a good chance the additional insured endorsement only provides additional insured status for ONGOING OPERATIONS and NOT COMPLETED OPERATIONS! This is absolutely not what a GC wants. It wants additional insured status for both ongoing and completed operations so that it can seek indemnification and defense for issues that arise post-completion.


  • Construction defect disputes often arise after substantial completion and after the owner receives the project. It is the owner that asserts the claim against the general contractor and the general contractor seeks indemnification and defense as an additional insured under subcontractors’ policies. If the subcontractor’s CGL policy does not provide for additional insured coverage for completed operations, courts and insurers will likely apply the same logic taken by the Fifth Circuit in this case. This is why obtaining a copy of the endorsement and requiring additional insured status for completed operations is important.


  • Even though contracts typically require the subcontractor to include additional insured coverage for completed operations, what the contract requires and what the policy states are oftentimes two different things. So, what is the recourse if a subcontractor’s policy does not comply with this provision? Well, you could include that the subcontractor failing to provide additional insured coverage for completed operations constitutes a material breach of contract. But, even if the contractor learns the right additional insured coverage is not being provided during construction, the chances of it terminating the subcontractor (and delaying the job) and finding a new subcontractor are probably slim to none. So what other recourse is there if this is learned during construction? Perhaps, if learned during construction, the provision can state that the general contractor is entitled to keep the subcontractor’s retainage as a form of liquidated damages based on damages that are not readily ascertainable. The subcontractor probably will not agree to such a provision. And, oftentimes, like this case, the additional insured coverage is not learned until after-the-fact when it is too late. Then what? Well, the contract already has an indemnification provision that would make the subcontractor responsible. The problem is that this provision is not additional insured coverage. Therefore, obtaining copies of subcontractors’ additional insured endorsements on the front end to determine whether there is coverage for completed operations is important.


  • CGL insurance is not a performance bond. They are two different insurance-type products with different purposes. Both can play a role in construction defect disputes. It is important to understand and appreciate their differences.


  • Finally, parties oftentimes try to navigate complicated CGL issues by themselves. This is a mistake. Parties should retain the services of counsel to assist them to ensure insurance claims are maximized and, if there is a performance bond in place, rights are preserved.


For more on additional insured coverage, please see: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/understanding-your-rights-as-an-additional-insured/


Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.



images-1Understanding when an “occurrence” under a CGL policy occurs is very, very important for purposes of submitting claims to insurers. It is important relating to its duties to defend and indemnify the insured.


The opinion in Trovillion Const. & Development, Inc. v. Mid-Contintent Cas. Co., 2014 WL 201678 (M.D.Fla. 2014), is a good opinion that discusses liability insurance considerations in a construction defect dispute including the triggering of liability insurance. In this case, a general contractor built a condominium over a multi-year period. Construction commenced in 2003. From 2003 through 2009, the contractor’s CGL carrier was Mid-Continent. Towards the end of 2009, it switched carriers to Endurance.


In 2009, the developer turned over control over the condominium to the unit owners. The association hired a company to perform an inspection of the condominium which revealed certain defects and building code violations (i.e., structural framing failure, organic growth, damage to interior finishes, etc.). The association sued the general contractor and developer in 2010 for violations of the building code, breach of statutory warranties, and deceptive and unfair trade practices.


The general contractor, as it should, notified and tendered the defense of its lawsuit to Mid-Continent and Endurance. Mid-Continent denied coverage and refused to participate in the defense. As a result, the contractor sued its insurer Mid-Continent for breach of contract and for a declaratory action arguing that Mid-Continent has a duty to defend and indemnify it in the association’s lawsuit. While this lawsuit was going on, the association’s lawsuit against the contractor was proceeding to trial. The contractor’s insurer, Endurance, was providing a defense. Right before trial, the association and the contractor (with the agreement of Endurance) entered into a consent judgment (known as a Coblentz agreement) for $1,800,000 which was entered in favor of the association against the contractor. The settlement provided that the association would not execute against the contractor. Following the court’s entry of the judgment, the contractor amended its complaint against Mid-Continent arguing that Mid-Continent is obligated to indemnify the contractor for the $1,800,000 judgment.


A Coblentz agreement is a settlement agreement between a third-party claimant and an insured to resolve a lawsuit where the insured’s liability insurer has denied coverage and its duty to defend. “Under Florida law, a party seeking recovery from an insurer under a Coblentz agreement must provide: (1) a wrongful refusal to defend; (2) a duty to indemnify; and (3) that the settlement was objectively reasonable and made in good faith.” Trovillion Const., supra, at *3. “In a traditional Coblentz agreement, the insured: (1) enters into a consent judgment establishing its liability and fixing damages; and (2) assigns any cause of action it has against its insurer to the claimant [in consideration of the claimant not executing on the judgment against the insured].” Id. at n.2.


In order to determine whether Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, the Court needed to determine what legal theory triggered the occurrence under the CGL policies. Numerous Florida courts have applied the manifestation theory meaning that the occurrence is triggered when the damage is discovered. There are courts that have applied the injury-in-fact theory meaning that the occurrence is triggered the moment there is actual damage irrespective of whether that damage is actually discovered. This is a significant difference and important for parties in liability-related disputes dealing with property damage to understand.


The underlying complaint the association asserted against the contractor alleged that the defects were causing ongoing damage and was silent as to the specific date the defects began to damage the condominium. But, the association’s inspection report after the developer turned the association over indicated that damages started to occur between the time construction commenced in 2003 and the 2009 inspection performed for the association. The report further alleged that the defects were not discovered until expert consultants were retained, i.e., in 2009. Mid-Continent argued that it had no duty to defend under the manifestation theory because the complaint alleged that the manifestation (when the defects were discovered) was 2009 at a point when it was no longer insuring the contractor. However, the court applied the injury-in-fact theory in this case. This meant that Mid-Continent’s policies were triggered because the triggering point was when actual damage started to occur, and not when it was actually discovered. Again, this is a crucial distinction–for this reason the Court found that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend.


Finding that a duty to defend existed, the Court’s next analysis was whether Mid-Continent had a duty to indemnify based on the actual coverage in the policies. An insurer’s duty to defend is much broader than an insurer’s duty to indemnify. Under a CGL policy with a “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion, a contractor’s insurer is not liable for the defective work caused by a subcontractor, but it is liable for the repairing the damage caused by the subcontractor’s defective work. (See the “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion in the CGL policy.)


Interestingly, in this case, of the six annual policies Mid-Continent issued between 2003-2009, only one policy contained the “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion. The other policies, through endorsement, eliminated the “subcontractor” exception. Without the “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion in CGL policies, the insurer is able to exclude coverage for damage arising from a subcontractor’s defective work. But, with the “subcontractor” exception, the insurer is liable for damage caused by a subcontractor’s defective work. Stated differently, without the “subcontractor” exception, the contractor is probably not getting the CGL coverage it thinks it is getting or needs when constructing a project with the potential for claims down the road (such as condo projects).


Because only one policy contained the “subcontractor” exception, the contractor needed to establish when the property damage occurred. Obviously, it is in its best interest to have expert testimony establishing that the date the damage occurred / was occurring was with the policy period where there was a “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion. Otherwise, Mid-Continent had no duty to indemnify!


Furthermore, Mid-Continent argued that even if the contractor proved that damage occurred within the policy period with the “subcontractor” exception, the consent judgment did not allocate covered damage to uncovered damage. In other words, the consent judgment did not allocate the portion of the damage attributable to repairing damage caused by subcontractors’ defective work. “Florida law requires Trovillion [contractor], the party seeking recovery, to allocate the settlement amount between covered and uncovered claim [and] [i]nability to allocate precludes recovery.Trovillion Const., supra, at *8.


The contractor, unfortunately, presented no evidence that it could apportion damages. Based on this issue, the Court ruled:


Trovillion is not relieved of its duty to apportion damages, and its failure to make any effort to do so or to produce evidence suggesting it is capable of doing so is fatal to its indemnification claim. For that reason, and because Trovillion has failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence suggesting that non-excluded property damage occurred at the condominium community during the MCC [Mid-Continent] policy periods, MCC’s motion for summary judgment is due to be granted….”



There are quite a few important take-aways from this case. First, know what argument needs to be made to trigger an occurrence under a liability policy. Whether it is the manifestation theory or injury-in-fact theory, consider both theories when presenting an argument and claim to a carrier. Second, know that an insurer’s duty to indemnify is much narrower than its duty to defend which is based on the allegations of the complaint. Third, if entering into a Coblentz agreement and corresponding consent judgment, include something that apportions damage between uncovered damage (a subcontractor’s defective work) and covered damage (damage caused by a subcontractor’s defective work). And, fourth, know whether your liability policy has a “subcontractor” exception to the “your work” exclusion or whether the carrier issued an endorsement that eliminated that exception. This “subcontractor” exception is important to contractors in Florida so if the endorsement that eliminated this exception was issued, make sure that you know your risks. Insurance is a critical part of risk assessment. Know your rights and appreciate your risks!


For more on construction defect insurance considerations, please see https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/construct-defect-insurance-considerations/


Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.


acParties in construction absolutely need to understand what triggers the duty of a liability insurer to defend a lawsuit. This needs to be understood not only by the insured-party being sued, but by the entity suing the insured-party. A liability insurer’s duty to defend its insured in a lawsuit is broader than its duty to indemnity its insuredKeen v. Florida Sheriff’s Self-Insurance, 962 So.2d 1021, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The duty to defend is based on allegations in the complaint if the allegations potentially bring the claim within the policy’s coverageId.; Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 43 So.3d 182, 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “Once the insurer’s duty to defend arises [based on the allegations in the underlying complaint], it continues throughout the case unless it is made to appear by the pleadings that the claims giving rise to coverage have been eliminated from the suit.”  Pennsylvania Lumbermens, 43 So.3d at 186 quoting Baron’s Oil Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 470 So.2d 810, 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).


The recent opinion in Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Advanced Cooling and Heating, Inc., 38 Fla. L. Weekly D2256a (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), demonstrates an insurer denying the duty to defend because the allegations against the insured did not potentially fall within the policy’s coverage. In this case, a service HVAC contractor was contacted because of a residential owner’s problem with an existing air conditioning system. The owner agreed to pay the HVAC contractor to install a new compressor. However, after the compressor was installed, the owner realized this did not cure his air conditioning problems and decided to stop the payment to the contractor. The HVAC contractor sued the owner and the owner counterclaimed asserting that the HVAC contractor breached the contract by failing to properly inspect his air conditioning system which resulted in unnecessary repair. The HVAC contractor tendered the counterclaim to its CGL carrier to defend it; the insurer denied coverage since the allegations in the complaint did not potentially trigger policy coverage.


The HVAC contractor retained counsel and successfully prevailed against the owner’s counterclaim. It also filed a lawsuit against its CGL insurer for a declaratory judgment that its insurer had a duty to defend it. The trial court agreed with the HVAC contractor and awarded fees and costs against the insurer pursuant to Florida Statute 627.428. (This statute allows for an insured to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs if it obtains a judgment against its insurer.)


The Fourth District, on appeal, reversed finding that the insurer did not have a duty to defend based on the owner’s allegations in the complaint. As the Fourth District found: “The [CGL] insurance policy issued to Advanced [insured-contractor] covers “bodily injury” or “properly damage” resulting from an “occurrence” pursuant to the policy definitions. The [residential owner’s] breach of contract claim alleges only that an improper or unneeded repair resulted in an unnecessary $438 expense to the customer. There are no allegations of bodily injury or property damage at all.”  Advanced Cooling and Heating, supra.


The insured-contractor tried to argue that the residential owner claimed that it installed the compressor in an unworkmanlike manner that caused a leak in the air conditioning system that damaged the compressor. However, the Fourth District shot this down because damage to the compressor or the air conditioning system was not resulting damage or property damage other than the property being repaired.


Liability insurance is not designed to cover the insured’s defective work or damage to the insured’s work caused by the insured. In the residential owner’s underlying claim, there was not personal injury or property damage resulting from the service HVAC contractor’s work. Understanding the duty of a liability insurer to defend a lawsuit should be important to any plaintiff seeking insurance coverage to pay for damage. Likewise, it is important to the insured-contractor that expects or wants its insurer to defend it in what can be a costly litigation.


For more information on liability insurance coverage, please see https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/cgl-policies-and-the-importance-of-couching-the-claim-to-the-insurer/


Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.