1 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 13a0014p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FORREST CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, X -- v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. - - >, - - N No Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. No. 3:09-cv-1036 Aleta Arthur Trauger, District Judge. Argued: October 2, 2012 Decided and Filed: January 11, 2013 Before: MERRITT, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. COUNSEL ARGUED: John M. Neal, THE NEAL LAW FIRM, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Philip L. Robertson, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John M. Neal, THE NEAL LAW FIRM, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Philip L. Robertson, Nashville, Tennessee, Mark M. Bell, WALLER, LANSDEN, DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. OPINION MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this diversity case applying Tennessee law, defendant, The Cincinnati Insurance Company, appeals from a grant of summary judgment to its policyholder, plaintiff Forrest Construction, Inc. Forrest Construction sued Cincinnati Insurance for refusing to defend Forrest pursuant to the terms of a commercial general liability policy after Forrest was sued in state court by customers for 1
2 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 2 whom it had built a residence in Brentwood, Tennessee. The case requires judicial interpretation of the coverage provisions of the policy for property damage and the subcontractor exception to the exclusion for your work in the policy. The district court found that Cincinnati Insurance had a duty to defend Forrest Construction. Cincinnati Insurance raises two questions on appeal. The first is whether Cincinnati Insurance was given sufficient notice of the facts giving rise to its obligation to defend. The second is whether the decision in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Moore & Associates, Inc., 216 S.W.2d 302 (Tenn. 2007), wrought a change in Tennessee law concerning the meaning of property damage. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court finding that Cincinnati Insurance had a duty to defend Forrest Construction. I. Facts Plaintiff Forrest Construction, Inc. was the named insured on a commercial general liability policy with Cincinnati Insurance. In 2004, Forrest was hired to construct a home in Brentwood, Tennessee, for James and Debbie Laughlin. A dispute arose over the amount owed by the Laughlins to Forrest and Forrest filed suit against the Laughlins in Tennessee state court. The Laughlins countersued based on alleged defects in the workmanship of the construction, particularly the foundation. countercomplaint against Forrest Construction alleged the following: 10. Among other items, the Laughlins discovered significant cracking in the foundation at the right rear corner of the dwelling, creating an unsafe and potentially life-threatening condition Forrest recklessly performed, or caused to be performed, work of such poor workmanship that it created an unsafe condition, causing a potentially deadly collapse of the residence Forrest recklessly constructed the foundation or recklessly caused to be constructed the foundation of the Laughlins residence.... The
3 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 3 Answer and Counter-Complaint filed in Forrest Const. Co., LLC, v. James Laughlin, et al., Case No (Williamson Cty., Tenn. Chancery Court Feb. 14, 2004) (attached to Complaint as Ex. B). Forrest Construction notified Cincinnati Insurance of the countercomplaint and requested defense. Forrest Construction s policy with Cincinnati was a standard commercial general liability policy that obligated Cincinnati to pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies. It also provided that Cincinnati Insurance had a duty to defend the insured against any suit seeking those damages. Commercial General Liability Policy, at p. 1 (attached to Complaint as Ex. A). The policy applies to bodily injury and property damage only if... [t]he bodily injury or property damage is caused by an occurrence. The policy excludes from coverage damage to your work, which is work performed by the contractor or any work arising out of it or any part of it. The your work exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor. Id. at 1-7. The policy contains a Definitions section providing definitions for certain terms used in the policy. The relevant terms from the policy are defined as follows: 16. Occurrence means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same harmful conditions Property damage means: a. Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.... ; or b. Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the occurrence that caused it.....
4 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page Your work a. Means: (1) Work or operations performed by you or on your behalf.... Commercial General Liability Coverage Form, at pp In April 2005, Cincinnati Insurance sent Forrest Construction a nine-page letter refusing to defend Forrest Construction against the Laughlin claims, basing its denial on the exclusion in the policy for work done by the insured (the your work exclusion) and its position that the underlying complaint did not allege damage caused by a subcontractor, thereby rendering the subcontractor exception to the your work exclusion inapplicable. Denial Letter at pp Forrest Construction subsequently defended itself in state court and was ordered to pay damages to the homeowners due to the faulty construction. In October 2009, Forrest Construction brought this suit against Cincinnati Insurance. The complaint contains claims for (1) breach of contract for failure to defend and indemnify; (2) declaratory judgment regarding Cincinnati Insurance s duty to defend and indemnify; (3) bad-faith denial of Forrest Construction s claim; and (4) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. After both parties filed summary judgment motions, the district court found that Cincinnati Insurance had breached its contract with Forrest Construction when it failed to defend it in the state court action. Dist. Ct. Op. filed Aug. 8, Cincinnati Insurance timely appealed to this Court. The Laughlins intervened in this case in 2011 and they have since settled with Cincinnati Insurance and are not parties to this appeal. 1 1 On appeal, Forrest Construction has made the argument that Cincinnati Insurance s decision to settle with the Laughlins, who had intervened in the federal action because they claim the right to any funds that Forrest Construction might receive from Cincinnati Insurance, serves as an indemnification that negates or estops Cincinnati Insurance s argument that it did not have a duty to defend Forrest Construction in the state court action. This argument is a red herring. Any decision by Cincinnati Insurance to settle with the intervenors does not estop Cincinnati Insurance from continuing to argue that it did not have a duty to defend Forrest in the state court action.
5 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 5 II. Analysis Under Tennessee law, which the parties agree controls this dispute, an insurer s duty to defend the insured is triggered when the underlying complaint alleges damages that are within the risk covered by the insurance contract and for which there is a potential basis for recovery. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Moore & Assocs., Inc., 216 S.W.3d 302, 305 (Tenn. 2007) (emphasis added). Whether the duty is triggered is determined solely by looking at the allegations contained in the underlying complaint. Id. [I]f even one of the allegations is covered by the policy, the insurer has a duty to defend, irrespective of the number of allegations that may be excluded by the policy. Id. The entire policy, including the insuring agreement, exclusions, exceptions and limitations, must be read as a whole and any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured. Dempster Bros., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 388 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964) ( [W]here the allegations of the complaint against the insured are ambiguous or incomplete and it is doubtful whether... they state a cause of action within the coverage of the policy..., such doubt will be resolved in favor of the insured. ); Drexel Chem. Co. v. Bituminous Ins. Co., 933 S.W.2d 471, 480 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) ( An insurer may not properly refuse to defend an action against its insured unless it is plain from the face of the complaint that the allegations fail to state facts that bring the case within or potentially within the policy s coverage. ) (emphasis added) (quoting Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Happy Day Laundry, Shelby Law 22, T.V., 1989 WL 91082, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 1989)). Undertaking the duty to defend does not automatically lead to a duty to indemnify. The duty to defend is construed broadly, and is broader than the duty to indemnify, because insurance companies may protect themselves by filing motions for declaratory judgment requesting a court to decide whether coverage applies or by filing a reservation of rights, which allows them to proceed with the defense but withdraw if it becomes evident that there is no duty to defend.
6 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 6 A. Sufficient Allegations to Trigger the Duty to Defend For the duty to defend to arise, the underlying complaint must make sufficient allegations concerning the nature of the damages sought to trigger the duty to defend, or, keeping in mind that ambiguity is construed in favor of the insured, to alert Cincinnati Insurance to further inquire if the allegations are not clear. This means that Cincinnati Insurance must have received enough information from the allegations to understand that there had been an occurrence causing property damage and that no exclusions applied. The underlying complaint clearly alleges damage to the foundation caused by faulty workmanship on the part of Forrest Construction or another entity when it states, Among other items, the Laughlins discovered significant cracking in the foundation at the right rear corner of the dwelling, creating an unsafe and potentially life-threatening condition, as well as alleging that poor workmanship created an unsafe condition, causing a potentially deadly collapse of the residence. Laughlin Countercomplaint at 10, 14. Second, the underlying complaint also includes references to work done by an entity other than Forrest Construction when it alleges that Forrest recklessly performed, or caused to be performed, work of such poor workmanship that it created an unsafe condition, causing a potentially deadly collapse of the residence, and Forrest recklessly constructed the foundation, or recklessly caused to be constructed the foundation of the Laughlins residence.... Id. 14, 19 (emphasis added). Despite this language, Cincinnati Insurance denied coverage, relying on the your work exclusion: Your work means work or operations performed by you or on your behalf and materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.... The construction of the claimants house falls squarely within this definition, and would be considered the insured s work.... Since all of [the Laughlins ] damages are alleged to arise from the insured s defective work, this exclusion will completely negate coverage. We do offer one caveat the exclusion does not apply to work performed by any subcontractors. The Counter-Complaint does not suggest that any of the work was performed by an entity besides the insured itself.
7 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 7 Denial Letter, at pp. 6-7 (emphasis added) (attached to Complaint as Ex. C). Despite Cincinnati Insurance s pronouncement in its letter to the contrary, the underlying complaint refers twice to defective work performed by Forrest Construction or caused to be performed. Forrest Construction correctly argues that the usual way a contractor would cause work to be performed is by hiring a subcontractor. See Fireguard Sprinkler Sys., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 648, 650 (9th Cir. 1988) (the phrase or on behalf of refers to the work of subcontractors). As acknowledged by Cincinnati Insurance in the denial letter, the your work exclusion does not apply to work done by subcontractors. The language of the underlying complaint sufficiently alleges that work may have been performed by another entity such that the subcontractor exception applies and Cincinnati Insurance should not have denied coverage on the ground that the work complained of fell within the your work exception. B. Property Damage and the Travelers Case Cincinnati Insurance has changed the focus of its argument since it issued its denial letter to Forrest Construction in In the district court, and on appeal, Cincinnati Insurance now contends that the intervening case of Travelers, 216 S.W.3d at 302, changed the law regarding what constitutes property damage for purposes of interpreting the policy. In Travelers, the plaintiff contractor built a hotel and hired a subcontractor to install the windows. Id. at 304. After construction was completed, the hotel owner alleged that negligent window installation by a subcontractor had resulted in water damage and mold infestation inside the hotel rooms. Id. After Travelers Insurance denied coverage, the contractor sued Travelers, claiming Travelers had a duty to defend it against the claims by the hotel owner. The opinion clarified that property damage, 2 Regardless of the ground on which Cincinnati Insurance may have based its denial of coverage in the letter, it explicitly reserved the right to make additional defenses at a later date, Denial Letter, at p. 8, and it was not estopped from making additional or different arguments after it was sued by Forrest Construction if it believes other grounds existed on which to deny coverage. See Lewellyn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 438 S.W.2d 741, (Tenn. 1969) (where insurance company reserved all defenses available to it under its policy, and there is no showing of harm to the insured because of the letter, the defenses of waiver and estoppel are not available to the insured) (citing 45 C.J.S. Insurance 707, p. 677).
8 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 8 which is defined only as injury to or destruction of tangible property, means something more than the replacement of a defective component or correction of a faulty installation. Id. at (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, installation of a defective component, such as installing a window that turns out to be defective, or negligent workmanship that results in a faulty foundation does not, standing alone, constitute property damage unless that defective component or negligent workmanship results in physical injury to some other tangible property. Analyzing the allegedly faulty installation of the windows and the damage caused to the rest of the hotel by the faulty installation, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that the underlying claim by the hotel owner against the contractor alleged property damage : We conclude that [the hotel owner s] claim is not limited to faulty workmanship and does in fact allege property damage. [The] subcontractor allegedly installed the windows defectively. Without more, this alleged defect is the equivalent of the mere inclusion of a defective component... and no property damage has occurred.... Because the alleged defective installation resulted in water penetration causing further damage, [the hotel owner] has alleged property damage. Id. at 310. Having concluded that the complaint alleged property damage caused by an occurrence, the Tennessee Supreme Court then looked to the your work exclusion and determined that it applied because the entire hotel was built by the contractor. Id. But, because the windows were alleged to have been installed by a subcontractor, the subcontractor exception applied and the damages were not excluded from coverage. Id. Accordingly, Travelers Insurance had a duty to defend the contractor against the claims by the hotel owner brought in the underlying complaint. Id. at 311. Relying on Travelers, Cincinnati Insurance argues that the underlying complaint filed by the Laughlins against Forrest Construction does not allege property damage because that term requires damage to something other than the structure the contractor was hired to build, regardless of whether the work was performed by the general contractor or subcontractors. Appellant s Br. at 8.
9 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 9 Cincinnati Insurance misconstrues Travelers. Travelers did not effect a sea change in the law, but clarified that property damage occurs when one component (here, the faulty foundation) of a finished product (the house) damages another component. 216 S.W.3d at 309. Travelers did not clarify the law in any way that materially improved Cincinnati Insurance s position. This is not a case where the sole damages alleged were the replacement of a defective component or correction of faulty installation. Dist. Ct. Op. at 15 (quoting Travelers, 216 S.W.3d at ). The damage alleged went further to include other damage caused by the faulty foundation. The underlying complaint alleged that [a]mong other things, the Laughlins discovered significant cracking in the foundation at the right rear corner of the dwelling, creating an unsafe and potentially life-threatening condition ; Forrest s workmanship created an unsafe condition, causing a potentially deadly collapse of the residence ; the Laughlins incurred damages in repairing said construction ; and that they were entitled to such damages against [Forrest Construction] as they may prove at trial. Countercomplaint at 10, 12, 14, 16, 21 and the Prayer for Relief. The district court found that the allegations in the underlying complaint filed by the Laughlins against Forrest Construction were ambiguous regarding the extent of the damage to the Laughlins house. Dist. Ct. Op. at 15. We agree with the district court. This language, however, while not a model of specificity as to the nature of the damages flowing from the faulty foundation (which it need not be in the complaint), implies that the faulty foundation caused damage elsewhere in and to the house and allegedly rendered the house unsafe to even enter, putting Cincinnati Insurance on notice that more than the foundation itself was affected by the faulty workmanship and that the Laughlins were alleging loss of use of their property. The Prayer for Relief is also very broad, requesting such damages... as they may prove at trial. Because an ambiguous complaint must be interpreted in favor of providing coverage to the insured, the allegations in the underlying complaint sufficiently alleged property damage and Cincinnati Insurance should not have denied coverage to Forrest Construction and this was the law in 2005 before Travelers was decided.
10 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 10 To interpret property damage as narrowly as Cincinnati Insurance suggests would mean that whenever a subcontractor s negligence led to damage of any part of the construction project, the insurer could deny recovery on the ground that it is excluded from the policy s initial grant of coverage. This interpretation would render meaningless both the your work exclusion and the subcontractor exception to the your work exclusion in the policy. C. Notice Cincinnati Insurance also makes several arguments based on laches and latenotice theories to argue that Forrest Construction should have requested reconsideration after Travelers. Cincinnati Insurance argues that Forrest Construction was responsible for requesting reconsideration of Cincinnati Insurance s denial of coverage because Travelers, decided by the Tennessee Supreme Court two years after the denial letter was issued, changed the law concerning the subcontractor exception ( Had Forrest communicated with Cincinnati after Travelers v. Moore and advised that subcontractors were involved, it is probable that... Cincinnati would have agreed [to provide a defense.] Def. s Mem. in Support of Summary Judgment at 15. First, Travelers did not change the law. At most, it clarified the law concerning the definition of property damage. See Travelers, 216 S.W.3d at 310. Therefore, before the decision in Travelers was issued, Cincinnati Insurance had a duty to defend Forrest Construction under the plain language of the policy and the case law that existed in Second, Cincinnati Insurance urges an approach that would create a new rule or standard by holding that insureds who have their claims denied should bear the burden of requesting reevaluation of coverage after the applicable law changes. Cincinnati Insurance concedes that this would be a matter of first impression and that there is no case law supporting this position. Appellant s Br. at Contrary to Cincinnati Insurance s claim, the law in this regard is quite clear. The insurer severs all the insured s responsibilities once it unequivocally denies coverage:
11 No Forrest Constr. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. Page 11 An insurer s unqualified denial of liability... affects its rights under the policy. By doing so, it no longer has a right to receive notice of the accident, participate in negotiations for settlement, or otherwise require the cooperation of the insured.... Rowland H. Long, The Law of Liability Insurance 5.05; see also Webb v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 581 F. Supp. 244, 249 (W.D. Tenn. 1984) (denial letter waives any further requirements under the policy as to notice or proof of loss). Specifically, where [an] insurer breaches its contract by refusing to defend, and the insured then retains counsel to protect [itself], the insurer cannot... object to the insured s handling of the case. 14 Couch on Insurance 202:7 (3d ed.). Forrest Construction did the only reasonable thing it could do under the circumstances: hire a lawyer and defend itself. Cincinnati Insurance tries to argue that it left open room for negotiation in the denial letter because the letter stated that Forrest Construction could contact Cincinnati Insurance if it disagreed with the denial. This is standard language in a denial letter and does not change the fact that the denial letter was unequivocal in its position. It should not be incumbent upon the insured to continue negotiations with the insurer once the denial letter has issued. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
STATE OF OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SS: CUYAHOGA COUNTY CASE NO. CV-484139 THE OAKWOOD CLUB Plaintiff vs. OPINION AND ORDER KINNEY GOLF COURSE DESIGN, ET AL Defendants MICHAEL J. RUSSO, JUDGE: This
NOTICE Decision filed 01/23/14. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588
Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle
Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY WESTFIELD INSURANCE ) COMPANY, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No. N14C-06-214 ALR ) MIRANDA & HARDT ) CONTRACTING AND BUILDING
CIZEK HOMES v. COLUMBIA NAT. INS. CO. 361 Cite as 22 Neb. App. 361 require perfection of a parent when deciding whether termination of parental rights is appropriate. We conclude that there is insufficient
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 6, 2006 Session THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA ET AL. v. MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals Chancery
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session JAY DANIEL, ET AL. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County No. 7087 Joe H. Walker, III,
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal
Case: 15-10510 Document: 00513424063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2016 Lyle W.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 11, 2005 Session M&M AUTO SALES v. OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY v. BROOKS ROAD AUTO MART, LLC; BROOKS ROAD AUTO MART LLC D/B/A MEMPHIS AUTO WORLD;
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, v. Record No. 951919 September
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 10, 2013 v No. 310157 Genesee Circuit Court ELIAS CHAMMAS and CHAMMAS, INC., d/b/a LC No. 09-092739-CK
2015 IL App (1st) 150941-U SIXTH DIVISION December 18, 2015 No. 1-15-0941 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 20, 2001 Session SUSAN WEISS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 306126
Reverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed December 29, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01546-CV OKLAHOMA SURETY COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
[Cite as Allied Roofing, Inc. v. W. Res. Group, 2013-Ohio-1637.] Allied Roofing, Inc., : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 12AP-575 v. : (C.P.C. No. 10CVH-02-3107)
2013 IL App (1st) 122479 - U SECOND DIVISION May 14, 2013 No. 1-12-2479 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooooo---- Edward D. Green, an individual; and Ed Green Construction, Inc., a Utah corporation,
2012 IL App (1st 112728-U FIRST DIVISION November 5, 2012 No. 1-11-2728 Notice: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3966 Jonathan Aten, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Scottsdale Insurance
Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle
Case: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Pekin Insurance Co. v. Rada Development, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 133947 Appellate Court Caption PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RADA DEVELOPMENT,
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA0830 Arapahoe County District Court No. 08CV1981 Honorable Michael Spear, Judge Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2005 WI APP 90 Case No.: 2004AP116 Petition for review filed Complete Title of Case: JOSHUA D. HANSEN, PLAINTIFF, RICHARDSON INDUSTRIES, INC., INVOLUNTARY-PLAINTIFF,
Recent Developments in Insurance Coverage Disputes Exclusions Gone Awry: Misinterpretations of the Contractual Liability and Faulty Workmanship Exclusions Pose a Threat to the Construction Industry Jeffrey
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3147 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1452-4 N. MILWAUKEE AVENUE, LLC, GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION COPLEY ASSOCIATES, LTD., DECEMBER TERM, 2005 Plaintiff, NO. 01332 v. COMMERCE PROGRAM ERIE
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND BUSINESS COURT HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-144956-CK Hon. James M. Alexander MDG ENTERPRISES, INC, Defendant.
Filed 5/16/13; pub. order 6/12/13 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- STEVE SCHAEFER, Plaintiff and Respondent, C068229 (Super.
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed December 31, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01619-CV BECKY DREW AND ROBERT KEVIN DREW, Appellants V. TEXAS FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE
COVERAGE FOR DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR FAULTY WORKMANSHIP: EXCLUSIONS J(5) AND J(6) R. Douglas Rees Co-author Tara L. Sohlman Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 TROVILLION CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.; and CASA JARDIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
Ed. Note: Opinion Rendered April 11, 2000 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar, March 1-3, 2012: Emerging Trends in Coverage for Construction Risks Construction Defects As An Occurrence Recent Appellate
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ELOURDE COLIN, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0776 444444444444 CHAPMAN CUSTOM HOMES, INC., AND MICHAEL B. DUNCAN, TRUSTEE OF THE M. B. DUNCAN SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST, PETITIONERS, v. DALLAS PLUMBING
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JUNE 19, 2008 Session GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, ET AL. v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-07-1107-2
2014 IL App (1st) 133931 SECOND DIVISION September 9, 2014 No. 1-13-3931 MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. v. ) ) CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK J. DIETRICK THOMAS D. COLLIGNON MICHAEL B. KNIGHT Collignon & Dietrick, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN E. PIERCE Plainfield, Indiana
Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT George M. Plews Jeffrey D. Claflin Jonathan P. Emenhiser Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY Julia Blackwell
REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
A&E Briefings Structuring risk management solutions Spring 2012 Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability J. Kent Holland, J.D. ConstructionRisk, LLC Professional consultants are judged
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 email@example.com Construction Defect Coverage Recap For 1st Quarter
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book
Case 4:06-cv-00191 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 05/25/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BARBARA S. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-00191
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1944 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff Appellant, PORTAL HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., Defendant Appellee.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000079-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-002127-O Appellant, v.
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES Title 13. Courts and Court Procedure Damages Regulation of Actions and Proceedings Article 20. Actions Part 8. Construction Defect Actions for Property Loss and Damage Construction
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 09-3874 Brake Landscaping & Lawncare, Inc., * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District
2012 WI APP 17 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2011AP2 Petition for Review Filed Complete Title of Case: ARTISAN & TRUCKERS CASUALTY CO. AND PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Additional Insured Endorsements: Watch Your Language! By Jill B. Berkeley, Insurance Policyholder Practice Group Chair Risk - 4th Quarter 2010 Reprinted with permission The use of Additional Insured Endorsements
case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL
SCHALLER, J. The plaintiffs 2 appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Insurance Company of Greater New York, in this declaratory judgment action concerning a dispute about the defendant
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2004 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk RONALD A. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant, v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY
13-20-801. Short title Colorado Revised Statutes Title 13; Article 20; Part 8: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ACTIONS FOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1 This part 8 shall be known and may be cited as the Construction
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session STEPHANIE JONES and HOWARD JONES v. RENGA I. VASU, M.D., THE NEUROLOGY CLINIC, and METHODIST LEBONHEUR HOSPITAL Appeal from the
Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW
Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. Luther ASHLEY, et al., Defendants, Luther Ashley, et al., Defendants-Appellees
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
RENDERED: JANUARY 22, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000566-MR TOM COX APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN KNOX MILLS,