Tag Archives: Construction Defect

(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In Engineering & Construction Innovations Inc. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., an unpublished decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals released on August 18, 2010, the court held that clean up costs arising out of the insured’s operations at the …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 Adopts “Equitable Contribution” to Apportion Defense Fees


Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled, finally, the archaic “Iowa National” rule.  Iowa National prohibited a defending liability insurer from seeking contribution or reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs from other liability insurers who refused to defend.   In Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Universal … Continue reading

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

Pro-Rata Time on the Risk: An Insured’s Contribution Obligation


Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 722 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. 2006) is the leading construction defect case in Minnesota.  The case involved several insurers (I represented West Bend) and over eighty separate water intrusion claims.  In that case, the court recognized, … Continue reading

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

Can a Claims Adjuster’s Conduct/Statements Bar an Insured’s Affirmative Defenses?


Can an insured be estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense based on the conduct or statements of a liability insurance claims adjuster?  Possibly. It has been held that a liability insurer can act as the insured’s agent when adjusting claims arising … Continue reading

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

Minnesota Contractual Risk Transfer Materials (1/2009)


A contract is an agreement in which each party promises to do something for the other party.  Usually, one party agrees to provide goods or services while the other party agrees to pay for those goods or services.  Unfortunately, during … Continue reading

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

No CGL Coverage Where General Contractor Leaves in the Middle of Project


In Builders Mutual v. R Design, 2010 WL 2079741 (D.S.C.), a federal district court in South Carolina found no coverage exists under a CGL policy, despite “resulting damage,” when the general contractor performed faulty work and left in the middle of the … Continue reading

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