Utah Reverses Course on Apportioning Costs of Defense to Policyholders
A recent Utah Supreme Court decision could result in significant benefits to some policyholders in Utah’s construction industry. The case, Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Unigard Insurance Co., 2012 UT 1, concerned a fight between two insurers about how to split the costs of defending a lawsuit brought against their policyholder, Cloud Nine. For policyholders, the most notable aspect of the decision centers on the fact that Cloud Nine was uninsured for about six months between the end of Ohio Casualty’s policy and the beginning of Unigard’s policy.
Ohio Casualty argued that Cloud Nine should have paid a portion of its defense costs based on the length of time it was uninsured. The court disagreed, noting that because both insurers reserved the right to control all aspects of the defense, “it would be inequitable to apportion any defense costs to an insured who has no power to select counsel or negotiate rates and no voice in deciding whether to settle the suit,” and therefore “it would be inequitable to hold the insured responsible for the share of defense costs attributable to the time period during which it was uninsured.”
The Ohio Casualty decision is significant because it effectively overrules part of the influential case of Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 931 P.2d 127 (Utah 1997), in which the court held that defense costs should be apportioned to an insured for those periods when it was without coverage.
For policyholders who have had a gap in liability coverage, the Ohio Casualty decision could provide a lifeline. Virtually all liability policies that obligate an insurer to defend its insured—including CGL, professional liability, employers’ liability, and pollution coverage policies—contain language that gives the insurer the right to control significant aspects of the defense. Thus, Ohio Casualty could apply in many coverage gap situations. Moreover, the complexity of many construction disputes makes an insurer’s duty to defend an extremely valuable aspect of coverage. Insurance industry statistics show that the cost of defending a complex commercial case can range as high as 77 cents for every 23 cents paid out to claimants. Scott C. Turner, Insurance Coverage of Construction Disputes § 7:1 (Nov. 2009). Depending on the complexity of the dispute and the length of the coverage gap at issue, the Ohio Casualty decision could spare construction industry policyholders from paying defense costs that could easily tally hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Increasing Importance of Performance Bonds
There are now 25 states in the U.S. that hold that construction defects are not an “occurrence” and are therefore not covered under commercial general liability policies insuring contractors. Couple this troubling statistic with the ever increasing number of policy exclusions and limitations, and we begin to realize that in many situations the contractor’s insurance policy is inadequate (or non-existent) protection against defects.
The importance of performance bonds as security to pay for construction defects is therefore growing. While some sureties who sell the bonds will tell you that bonds merely guarantee completion, and do not insure against latent defects, the language of the typical bond defies this position.
Bonds plainly state that they guarantee each and every obligation of the contractor under the contract. Those obligations usually include the duty to perform work according to the plans and specifications, the standard of care, and without defect or nonconformity. This author has not seen a bond that attempts to carve out construction defects from its coverage. And bonds do not have the host of exclusions or limited coverage grants that plague the value of insurance policies. By the same token, bonds are not perfect and owners should consider the following to get the most protection from a bond:
First, the bond duration should extend at least as long as the warranty period (typically one year from completion but sometimes longer) and for as many years thereafter as possible, up to the statute of repose period in the state in which the project is located. Because construction defects often appear years after completion, the bond duration is critical. You may pay more for a bond with a longer duration, but if the bond is needed, you should be paying less for the unreliable insurance carried by the contractor.
Continue Reading...
Bond. Performance Bond.
Performance bonds—insurance-like arrangements in which a surety (the bonding company) contractually agrees to pay for the performance of a principal (the contractor) to an obligee (the owner) in case the principal fails to perform the obligations of its contract—should be used more often in construction agreements to provide owners with a source of funds to cover defective work in a project.
Currently, owners typically require contractors to obtain insurance policies with the hope that such policies cover defects in the work they perform for the owner. Though owners are willing to spend a lot of money, time, and effort in obtaining these policies, insurers continue to make revisions to their policies to limit, and sometimes prevent, coverage for these defects.
.jpg)
Performance bonds may provide better protection to an owner. Typically, the bond provides funds to pay for repair of defective work that may not be covered by insurance as part of the bond’s guarantee of the faithful performance of the contract by the contractor.
Unlike insurance policies, performance bonds provide coverage only for the owner’s project—if an owner discovers a defect in the contractor’s work, the owner will not have to worry whether another owner’s claim against the contractor for another defective project will reduce the coverage available under the contractor’s bond. The performance bond’s recovery pool belongs to the owner for the specific project it is drafted to cover.
A Rose by any Other Name.... But Are You Really Insured?
Do you think you have adequate insurance protection for your project under an “additional insured endorsement” to another entity’s policy? Or through a “wrap” policy, known as either an Owner’s Controlled Insurance Policy (OCIP) or Contractor’s Controlled Insurance Policy (CCIP), because you are listed as “an insured”? Perhaps not under more recent policies. Check the latest policy language carefully, and you may not like what you find. Many recent insurance policies now include limiting language that restricts the self-insured retention (SIR) provision to payments made only by “The Named Insured,” e.g., “Payments by others, including but not limited to additional insureds or insurers, do not serve to satisfy the self-insured retention. Satisfaction of the self-insured retention as a condition precedent to our liability applies regardless of insolvency or bankruptcy by you.” This past year we have noted a few published decisions that have supported such limiting policy language, allowing an insurer to restrict and ultimately refuse to accept SIR payments from any other insured but “the Named Insured.” What is the result of that interpretation if “The Named Insured” is M.I.A.? The policy is never triggered, thereby precluding coverage and the benefits of the policy to all other insureds. The potential effect on risk management and business protection for your project make those policies worthy of a second look.
You Are a Project Owner or Developer Who Wants to Build a Green Project? So, What Do You Actually Put in Your Contracts?
Despite the explosion of articles, seminars and webinars on green building and development during the last year or so, there is a dearth of information in the development world regarding what project owners and developers who do want to build a green project should actually put in their design and construction contracts.
Here is what I think is important regarding this subject:
General Green Building Certification Goal. The project owner first must decide in general what green building goal it wants to achieve. LEED certification (from the US Green Building Council), at a particular certification level (general, silver, gold, platinum), is an obvious option. But there are other general green building certifications, too, such as Green Globes (Green Building Initiative) and SBTool07 (International Initiative For a Sustainable Built Environment), as examples. The owner should make this basic decision early on, based on good information and analysis and the advice and recommendations of design and green building consultants, as applicable.
Industry-Specific Green Building Certification Goal. Deciding on an overall green building goal such as a LEED certification is not the only certification goal a project owner should consider, however. There also is a growing number of industry-specific certifications that the owner should evaluate, depending on the nature of the project and the owner’s business. For example, there are certifications available for health facilities (Practice Greenhealth), restaurants (Green Restaurant Association) and hotels (Hotel Pure Green). How important an industry-specific certification of this type is to an owner is a question to be addressed at the start of the design process.
Tax and Other Governmental Incentives Goal. Another element of green building goals to be considered is tax and other governmental incentives relating to green building. Particularly in Oregon and under new federal stimulus legislation, there may be tax credits, grants and other public sector incentives for green, sustainable and energy efficient construction that can be of substantial benefit to a project. However, these incentives must be identified as project goals early in a project’s design in order to ensure that the owner is able to take advantage of them.
Making Green Building Goals Explicit. Once an owner has sorted through its optional goals for LEED or other general certification, for industry-specific certification and for tax and other governmental incentives, these goals should be expressly set out in the owner’s design and construction contracts. Otherwise, the owner’s architect and contractor will not have any contractual obligations to achieve the owner’s green building goals. Typical form contracts, including 2007 American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) forms of contract, include minimal references to these kinds of obligations and do not include language in which to make the goals explicit.
Continue Reading...Negligence Claims Take Another Twist in Oregon
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water, the Oregon Court of Appeals strikes again with another iteration of the “economic loss doctrine” which defines when parties can sue each other in negligence for construction defects. In Abraham v. Henry (September 2, 2009) the Court held that parties to a contract can sue each other in negligence if a rule, code or standard “independent of the contract” has been violated. A prime source for independent rules, held the Court, is the Oregon Building Code. From now on, we can expect to see plaintiffs including in their complaints that one or more provisions of the Oregon Building Code have been violated. It will be easy to find such violations in most construction defect claims.
The prior standard, enunciated in the Jones v. Emerald case, held that there must be a “special relationship” between the contracting parties in order to support a negligence claim. No one really knew what a special relationship was, but most believed that alleging in the complaint that the owner relied on the contractor’s expertise was sufficient to create such a relationship and thus a right to sue in negligence. Abraham may have changed that belief by pointing out that, at least in that case, there was nothing “special” about the arms-length owner/contractor relationship, and, with or without reliance on the “expertise” of the contractor, each party was acting on its own behalf and for its own benefit.
Other decisions from Oregon courts support the argument that the economic loss doctrine does not bar negligence claims if there is physical property damage, but this argument was not made or at least not addressed by the Abraham court.
The principal reason – if not the only reason – why the economic loss rule is relevant is that Oregon’s statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years from the date of breach (which, at the latest, is usually the date of substantial completion or failure to honor extended warranties). For claims discovered and/or brought after six years, you must be able to assert a negligence theory for the claim to be viable, because the negligence period runs two years from the date of discovery of the claim (as opposed to the date of breach), capped by the 10 year statute of repose (which states that all claims must be brought regardless of discovery within 10 years from substantial completion). Thus, if you cannot assert a negligence claim, you may have no other claim to assert.
The vast amount of time and fees generated in litigating statute of limitations issues in Oregon construction cases is fueled by (1) disparate limitations periods for breach and negligence claims, (2) disparate limitations periods for claims against designers versus contractors, and (3) the every changing – and arguably inconsistent – decisions from Oregon courts on what the rules of the game really are. Oregon needs a “Construction Defect Reform Act” with one limitations period for all claims against all parties on a construction project, governed by a discovery rule and capped by a statute of respose, with a clear statutory answer to the economic loss rule. Until then, uncertainty and high legal fees will continue to be the norm.
The Risk of Builders Risk
Contractors and owners obtain builders risk policies to protect themselves from risks associated with construction. But a lack of care in understanding and negotiating the provision of the construction agreement governing the builders-risk policy and the policy itself may lead the parties to expose themselves to needless and significant liability.
What owners and general contractors should do to protect themselves
If a construction contract requires the owner or the general contractor to obtain a builders risk policy—and it should—then that party should in fact obtain the policy. This may seem painfully obvious, but sometimes parties do not obtain required policies.
Courts have held, unsurprisingly, that a construction contract calling for a builders-risk policy means what it says. If the party whom the contract required to obtain a builders-risk policy does not obtain a policy, that party assumes the risk of loss that ought to have been covered by the policy. So, if a construction agreement requires, say, the owner to obtain a builders-risk policy, the owner should obtain the policy, and the other parties relying upon the policy should confirm the existence of the policy and its terms.
The Builders-Risk Policy Should Allow for the Construction Contract’s Mutual Waiver of Subrogation
Construction contracts frequently include a clause in which the owner and the contractor, both covered by the builders-risk policy, waive their right of subrogation against each other regarding any damages covered by that policy. The owner should not be able to sue the contractor for a loss if the owner has already obtained builders-risk insurance that would make him whole (or vice versa)—the mutual waiver of subrogation prevents the owner or the contractor from recovering twice.
However, if the builders-risk policy itself contains a provision preventing the parties from waiving subrogation, the execution of the construction contract may violate the policy conditions and might prevent recovery under the builders-risk policy.
As the owner and contractor negotiate the construction contract and the builders-risk insuring agreement, they need to pay attention to the provisions in each agreement governing subrogation. Broadly, they need to pay attention to the effect that each agreement has on the other, and should ensure that the builders-risk policy does not prevent the parties from waiving their subrogation rights. Moreover, they need to pay attention to the interaction between a builders-risk policy and any property insurance policy the owner may have (see below). The waiver of subrogation should apply to claims brought under the property policy for a few years after termination of the builders-risk policy.
The Construction Contract Should Specify When and under What Conditions the Owner Can Terminate the Builders-Risk Policy
Builders-risk policies are, as their name suggests, designed to cover risk arising from building. Once the structure is built, though, the builders-risk policy usually terminates. Builders-risk policies also typically terminate on the occurrence of a number of other conditions.
For example, the builders-risk policy may end when the equipment in a plant is first energized, on the theory that once you fire up the plant, it is no longer under construction but is operating as a business and therefore presents different insurable risks.
Once builder-risk insurance terminates, usually the owner’s property insurance kicks in. Property insurance, however, does not usually protect the contractor because the contractor is not a named insured under that policy, and it will not protect against all the events that a builders-risk policy would. If an insurable event occurs that would have been covered by the builders-risk policy after the policy has been terminated, there may be no coverage, possibly causing the parties to argue about whether the policy was properly terminated. If the owner terminates the builders-risk policy without telling the general contractor—and yes, this does happen—the parties will then argue whether the termination actually occurred.
Simply, unexpected termination of a builders-risk policy can ruin your day. The term of a builders-risk policy, then, is a critical point to negotiate and to stick to. Owners should not terminate a builders-risk policy early, and contractors should ask for a provision in the policy requiring the owner to give them notice before termination of the policy so that the contractor can arrange for adequate coverage elsewhere.
Is your project's design work insured? Here's an insurance policy to keep in mind
With all the stuff to worry about during a construction project, one of the areas that’s commonly overlooked is insurance coverage. Owners and contractors often assume that the parties they’re contracting with have adequate insurance, or that the information on an insurance certificate (which, by the way, isn’t binding on the insurance company) is an accurate picture of a company’s insurance profile.
These assumptions are especially dangerous if there is a lack of professional liability insurance for design-build work. In design-build projects, the general contractor (GC) or one of its subs, rather than the owner, hires the architect and engineer to design the project. But even if your project isn’t 100% design-build, there’s a good chance that some of the design work – for example, fire sprinkler design – won’t be performed by the project architect hired by the owner. Either way, you can bet that the liability policies of the GC or its subs don’t cover the errors of architects or engineers hired by the GC or sub to design the work. So, without coverage through a designer’s insurance, and without coverage through the GC’s or subs’ liability insurance, there’s a hole in insurance coverage. And even if a design professional hired by the GC or a sub carries insurance, it may be inadequate to cover the potential loss.
One option is to acquire Contractor’s Protective Professional Indemnity and Liability Insurance, or CPPI. CPPI is insurance that a contractor can buy that indemnifies the contractor for negligent errors and omissions of a design professional hired by the contractor. If written properly, CPPI gives the contractor coverage for design errors if the design professional’s own insurance comes up short.
Like all insurance, CPPI isn’t perfect. CPPI will likely have exclusions that will limit coverage (for example, for mold), and, to shake out a policy’s weaknesses, the fine print should be carefully reviewed. And because CPPI doesn’t kick in until it’s determined whether the design professional’s own insurance applies, it may be months or even years until the CPPI policy responds to a claim. But if design work isn’t otherwise adequately insured, CPPI could help a contractor protect itself and the project owner.
