Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii | May 1, 2019
The Illinois Court of Appeals found the subcontractor was owed a defense for alleged property damage caused by its faulty workmanship, but outside its scope of work. Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Ass’n, 2019 Ill. App. LEXIS 208 (Ill. Ct. App. March 29, 2019).
The condominium association sued its general contractor, Belgravia, for alleged defects allowing water to infiltrate and cause damage. Belgravia filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including the carpentry subcontractor Denk & Roche. Denk & Roche held a CGL policy with two insurers during the relevant period, one with Cincinnati Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2000 through June 1, 2007, and another with Acuity Insurance Company, effective June 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013.
Denk & Roche tendered its defense to both insurers. Cincinnati agreed to defend and contributed to a settlement of the AOAO’s claims. Acuity denied a defense, contending that the underlying claims did not trigger a duty to defend. Acuity’s declaratory judgment suit sought a determination that it had no duty to defend. Cincinnati intervened and argued it was entitled to equitable contribution from Acuity.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found that Acuity had no duty to defend.
On appeal, the court noted that while a CGL policy would not insure a contractor for the cost of correcting construction defects, damage to something other than the project itself did constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy. Here, the duty to defend Denk & Roche turned n what qualified as damaged beyond “the project itself” where the insured was a subcontractor performing discrete work on a project and the subcontractor had no control over other aspects of the project.
From the eyes of the subcontractor, the “project” was limited to the scope of its own work. The precise nature of any damage that might occur for something outside of that scope was as unknown or unforeseeable as damage to something entirely outside of the construction project. Therefore, when the underlying complaint alleged that a subcontractor’s negligence caused something to occur to a party of the project outside of the subcontractor’s scope of work, there was an occurrence under a CGL policy, even though it would not be an occurrence from a general contractor or developer’s perspective. Consequently, the court drew a major distinction between coverage for faulty workmanship performed by a subcontractor versus a general contractor or developer. Summary judgment for Acuity was reversed.
The court also found that Cincinnati was entitled to equitable contribution from Acuity for undertaking the subcontractor’s defense. The case was remanded for a determination on the exact amount of contribution to be made.