Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog | July 30, 2019 When things go wrong on a construction project it’s often a scramble of finger pointing. In McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Case No. D074219 (June 5, 2019), the California Court of Appeals for the 4th District considered whether an additional insured… Continue reading Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion
Category: Duty to Defend
Duty to Defend Pre-Litigation Construction Defect Claims
Christopher P. Ferragamo and Alexis P. Joachim | DRI Coverage disputes between insureds and their insurance companies over the scope of the term “suit” and whether insurers are obligated to provide insureds with a defense for quasi-judicial proceedings relating primarily to environmental clean-up actions initiated by state and federal environmental agencies have been waged for decades. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) attempted to end… Continue reading Duty to Defend Pre-Litigation Construction Defect Claims
An Insurer’s Duty to Defend is Now Triggered by Pre-Suit Notices Under Florida’s Construction Defect Statute, But Only With an Insurer’s Consent
Gary Brown and Steven Appelbaum | Construction Industry Counselor | January 5, 2018 In a case of first impression that will undoubtedly have significant effects on Florida’s construction and insurance industries, the Florida Supreme Court recently decided that an insurer’s duty to defend under a standard form commercial general liability (CGL) policy was triggered by… Continue reading An Insurer’s Duty to Defend is Now Triggered by Pre-Suit Notices Under Florida’s Construction Defect Statute, But Only With an Insurer’s Consent
Oregon Supreme Court Reaffirms Broad Nature of the Duty to Defend, even in the Face of Ambiguous or Unclear Allegations
Kevin Mapes | The Policyholder Report | December 14, 2016 Back in August 2015, I wrote this post about the Oregon Court of Appeals opinion in West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., where the court confirmed that Oregon’s broad duty to defend extended to parties claiming rights as “additional insureds.” Last week, the… Continue reading Oregon Supreme Court Reaffirms Broad Nature of the Duty to Defend, even in the Face of Ambiguous or Unclear Allegations
Contract Indemnity and Duty to Defend vs. Insurance Duty to Defend
Stan Martin | Commonsense Construction Law LLC | June 10, 2016 A New Hampshire court has issued a thoughtful decision on the duty to defend arising from an indemnity obligation in a design contract. The court distinguished between the duty to defend often invoked for insurance coverage, from a duty to defend expressed in a… Continue reading Contract Indemnity and Duty to Defend vs. Insurance Duty to Defend