Courts nationwide continue to differ in their decisions regarding construction defect insurance coverage cases,” write members of Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services practice.
Thomas F. Segalla, Michael T. Glascott, Ashlyn M. Capote, Adam R. Durst, and Jason E. Rusche examined courts’ analyses in insurance coverage cases arising out of construction defect claims in Part II of “Construction Defect Claims: A 2019 Update” for Mealey’s Litigation Report.
The cases they discuss “touch on numerous issues that typically arise from construction defect litigation, including the broader coverage issues that usually impact coverage analyses, such as a particular jurisdiction’s duty to defend standard.”
Following Part I of their article, Part II highlights “several Connecticut cases that analyze what constitutes a ‘collapse’ in the first-party context and an analysis of several cases from North and South Carolina involving the same insured, which involve other issues sometimes tangential to construction defect claims, such as the duty to cooperate.”
“The authors anticipate that there will be numerous additional cases to discuss in this publication next year,” they write. “One case recently decided in 2020 in Texas, Brit UW Limited v. FPC Masonry LP, evaluated a coverage claim involving exclusions for multifamily homes. We also look forward to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Nash Street LLC v. Main Street America Assurance Co., where the court will decide the scope of various business risk exclusions, including what the language ‘that particular part’ means in the context of ‘your work’ exclusions.”
Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services group will return with another update on the development of this body of case law throughout 2020.
Read the article:
- “Construction Defect Claims: A 2019 Update—Part II” Mealey’s Litigation Report: Construction Defects Insurance, April 2020