Tag Archives: Commercial Liability Coverage

Subcontractor Liable for General Contractor’s Pre-Notice Defense Fees


Many states recognize that a liability insurer is not obligated to pay for the defense of a claim until it is notified of the suit. See, e.g., Home Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh, 658 N.W.2d 522, … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Coverage, Duty to Defend | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

(Part VI) Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims


This post is a continuation of the series “Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims.” This post (Part VI) is the first of several posts which address additional insured (AI) coverage for a general contractor under the … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Coverage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

(Introduction) Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims


Having studied, worked with and litigated coverage issues under the commercial general liability (CGL) policy for twenty years, large construction defect claims, particularly those involving commercial and multi-unit residential buildings, pose some of the most complex claims encountered by those … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Coverage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

(Part V) Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims


This post is a continuation of the series “Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims.” This post (Part V) addresses the obligation of a subcontractor and its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer with regard to the defense … Continue reading

Posted in BAP, CGL, Coverage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

(Part IV): Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims


This post (Part IV) is a continuation of my multiple part series “Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims.” (You may want to read the prior posts in this series to catch up).   This post addresses the specific requirements … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Coverage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Minnesota CGL: Clean Up Costs Arising From Construction Operations Barred


In Engineering & Construction Innovations Inc. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., an unpublished decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals released on August 18, 2010, the court held that clean up costs arising out of the insured’s operations at the … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Coverage, Duty to Indemnify | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

(Part III) Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims


This post is a continuation of the series “Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims.” This post (Part III) addresses the “strict construction” test used to interpret indemnification agreements.  Part IV will address the specific requirements of “insured … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Coverage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

(Part II) Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims


This post is a continuation of the series “Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims.” This post, as well as the next three, will focus on the subcontractor’s liability to a general contractor pursuant to an indemnity … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Coverage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

(Part I) Minnesota CGL: Getting a Handle on Large Construction Defect Claims


Large construction defect claims, particularly those involving commercial and multi-unit residential buildings, present some of the most complex claims encountered by those practicing insurance coverage law. The vast majority of CGL claims involve one insured seeking the protection of the … Continue reading

Posted in CGL, Coverage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Minnesota Coverage Law: Criminal Acts Exclusion


In Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. McDonough, ___ F3rd____ (8th Cir. 2010) (applying Minnesota law), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently interpreted a criminal acts exclusion in an auto policy to bar coverage.  After a night of drinking, Morelli … Continue reading

Posted in Auto Dealer, BAP, CGL, Coverage, Duty to Defend, Duty to Indemnify | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment