Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance law Hawaii
After its prior decision holding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship was remanded by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court. Skanska United States Bldg. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contrs., 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 7336 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2021). The post summarizing the Supreme Court decision is here.
Skanska USA Building was the construction manager on a renovation project at a medical center. Skanska subcontracted the heating and cooling portion of the project to defendant M.A.P. MAP held a CGL policy from Amerisure. Skanska and the medical center were named as additional insureds.
MAP installed a steam boiler and related piping for the heating system. When completed, the heating system did not function properly. MAP installed some of the expansion joints backwards, causing damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system.
MAP notified Amerisure. After making repairs, Skanska also submitted a claim to Amerisure. The claims were denied. Skanska filed suit against MAP and Amerisure. The trial court denied Amerisure’s motion for summary judgment. All parties agreed that the damage was caused by an unforeseen accident. There were material issues of fact as to whether there was an occurrence.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an occurrence could not include damages for the insured’s own faulty workmanship. There was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff sought coverage for replacement of its own work product. The Supreme Court then reversed the Court of Appeals decision, holding that “an ‘accident’ may include unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product.”
Now, on remand, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. Amerisure urged the court to follow the majority approach and hold that, while faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured contractor’s work product may be an accident, an insured’s own faulty workmanship that damages only its own work product, requiring the product to be repaired or replaced, is not. The issue, however, was not presented previously to the trial court.
The trial court was directed to determine whether an occurrence took place and, if so, the scope of coverage in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.