Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii

    The court found that the insured’s negligent acts causing damage to only the structure of the home it built were not covered under the CGL policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Zaremba Builders II LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36189 (N.D. Ill. March 2, 2022).

    Zaremba contracted to build a house for the Vrdolyak Trust. After completion of the home, the occupants found many problems, including painting defects such as bubbling and peeling, leaving the basement full of water for months, causing damage to ductwork, framing and piping in the house, etc. The Trust sued and Westfield denied a defense.

    Westfield filed a declaratory judgment action for a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. On Westfield’s motion for summary judgment, the court determined there was no property damage. Property damage included “physical injury to tangible property.” When the alleged damage occurred in the course of a construction project, tangible property had to be property outside the scope of the contract for project. 

    Zaremba’s construction project encompassed the entire home. The underlying complaint alleged only damage to the structure itself, or damage that fell within the scope of Zaremba’s contract. All the alleged damage constituted damage to the very house Zaremba was contracted to build. Therefore, it did not quality as “property damage” under the policy.

    Zaremba argued he purchased Products-Completed Operations coverage. But purchase of the coverage did not mean that, once the project is complete, any damage to the project itself was covered. While the Products-Completed Operations provision extended the grant of coverage in the insuring agreement to completed products or operations, it remained limited by the terms of that grant of coverage. Here, the insuring agreement required that an “occurrence” result in “property damage’ to trigger coverage. There was no property damage here when the underlying complaint alleged only construction defects causing damage within the scope of the contracted-for project. 

    Therefore, summary judgment was granted to Westfield. 

When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email

Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered By CGL Policies

Nathan A. Cazier and Scott S. Thomas | Payne & Fears

The construction industry operates under the constant spectre of claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Fortunately, the law in most states treats these claims as covered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. A small minority of states take a much stingier view. In a newly decided case, a Pennsylvania federal court confirmed that Pennsylvania belongs to this small group of states that regard construction claims as not worthy of liability insurance coverage. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Howard Lynch Plastering, Inc., No. CV 21-3977, 2022 WL 445768, (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022).

Main St. involves a typical construction defect case: W.B. Homes (“W.B.”) developed a residential community, contracting with various trades to build the homes. W.B. required these subcontractors to obtain liability insurance covering their work and, when homeowners sued W.B. for damages due to allegedly faulty work, W.B. tendered the claim to these insurers. One of them, Main Street Assurance Co. (“Main Street”) then sued W.B. for declaratory relief, arguing that under Pennsylvania law, it had no duty to defend W.B.

Following Pennsylvania precedent, Main St. held that faulty workmanship is not an “occurrence” and, thus, claims grounded in faulty workmanship are not covered under CGL policies. See Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Com. Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006). Kvaerner – and now Main St. – reason that CGL policies, which cover only liability caused by an “occurrence,” define “occurrence” as an “accident,” and “faulty workmanship does not constitute an ‘accident.’” Id. at 899–900.

W.B. anticipated this reasoning, and tried to get around it in two ways: First W.B. argued that the construction defect claim was grounded in product liability (which might be covered by CGL policies in Pennsylvania). The court rejected this argument, since the homeowners never actually alleged that any product caused damage. Next, W.B. argued that the policy’s “Products Completed Operations Hazard” exclusion, (eliminating coverage for certain damages caused by faulty workmanship) implies that the policy was intended to treat faulty workmanship as an “occurrence” – otherwise the exclusion would be unnecessary. Main St. rejected this argument because, in the court’s view, it doesn’t overcome W.B.’s threshold problem: faulty workmanship is not an “occurrence” in Pennsylvania. Thus, the court reasoned, because the “occurrence” requirement in the insuring agreement was never satisfied, the court need not consider whether exclusions and their exceptions apply.


Main St. makes it clear that risk transfer strategies for Pennsylvania projects based on traditional general liability insurance coverage will continue to be problematic. Negotiating during the procurement process (when possible) for amended language that broadens coverage, or for favorable choice-of-law provisions, may help. Manuscripted OCIP’s specifically designed to provide coverage for construction defect claims may also be an alternative.Finally, negotiating favorable indemnity agreements with trades and suppliers – which has its own set of challenges and limitations – becomes even more important. But there are no convenient solutions to Pennsylvania’s outlier perspective on insurance coverage for construction defect claims.

When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email

Mind the Gap: Coverage Gaps Created by Commercial General Liability Policies

Kelsey Dilday | Barnes & Thornburg

One of the most important things a business owner can do to protect their business is to purchase insurance. If you are new to the realm of insurance – or are simply relying on common sense – you may believe that the best policy to protect your business is a simple commercial general liability policy (CGL). After all, a typical CGL appears to provide broad coverage, usually for “all sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies.”

Yet while this language initially appears broad, the standard CGL policy is often rife with exclusions and definitions that may significantly undercut your coverage – limiting the types of injury and damage “to which this insurance applies.” These exclusions or definitions can create what are called coverage “gaps” when standing alone or interacting with other policies you may have.

The Professional Services Exclusion

Imagine this: You own an architecture and engineering firm that provides design specifications for large construction projects. Despite a design that, when implemented properly, would have been executed safely, your subcontractor’s employee is injured on the job when the bosses instruct them to perform a more dangerous maneuver than your designs specified. Your insurer issued you a CGL policy, which contained an exclusion for bodily injury “arising from or caused by the rendering or failure to render professional services.” You notify your CGL insurer, expecting CGL insurer coverage for the accident, because your designs were safe, and the accident was caused by deviation from your safe specifications.

To your surprise, your CGL insurer denies coverage on the basis that the bodily injury arises from your firm’s professional services, because you created the designs, and because many courts will interpret exclusionary language including phrases such as “arising from” or “arising out of” expansively. How do you navigate this coverage “gap?”

You may convince your CGL insurer that, because the cause of the accident was really deviation from your safety specifications, the bodily injury did not actually stem from your professional services, such that your CGL policy may still apply. However, that argument may be an uphill battle that largely depends on state interpretation of exclusionary provisions.

You may be able to argue that such a “gap” creates “illusory” coverage, where based on the services your firm regularly provides, your CGL policy fails to provide any coverage at all. Such an argument also depends on your jurisdiction, but where such an argument is accepted, courts will generally uphold the reasonable expectations of the insured and may require the insurer to cover such a gap, so long as your reasonable expectation was that such injuries would be covered upon procurement of the policy.

While there certainly may be arguments that you could make in favor of coverage, the easiest solution to the coverage gap is to ensure no gaps exist at all. One common way to do this is to ensure you have a policy that complements any “gap” created by your CGL policy. In this scenario, such a policy would be a professional liability policy specifically designed to provide coverage for bodily injury stemming from professional services that you offer.

When obtaining such a policy from a broker or insurer, it is important to read the language of each policy purchased to ensure that any coverage gaps are filled. For example, if a CGL policy excludes bodily injury arising from rendering or failure to render professional services, you should carefully review your professional liability policy to ensure that your professional liability policy does not exclude bodily injury generally, as such a combination may likewise provide only illusory coverage.

Other Common Coverage Gaps

Other common exclusions in a CGL policy that could create coverage gaps may be exclusions based on use of an automobile; cyberattacks or other data breaches; actions taken by directors and officers of a company that may cause harm your company; and/or pollution. Mitigating the harm that may derive from these coverage gaps can be similar to the strategies outlined above, with the most important being to ensure that, where any gaps may exist, a business owner has purchased a policy that may provide the coverage a CGL policy has excluded.

A comprehensive insurance package will generally contain protections for all facets of an operation. Such a package may include a policy or multiple policies providing coverage for commercial general liability, commercial property, professional liability, automobiles, directors and officers’ liability, and/or cyber liability.

A business owner should always mind the gaps in coverage that a CGL policy can create. Pay particular attention when purchasing new policies or a package of policies to ensure that those policies work together, rather than against one another in a way that might leave you with uncovered liability. There is no reason to battle an insurer over concepts such as interpretation or illusory coverage stemming from a coverage gap when those gaps could have been successfully avoided in the first place.

Construction Defect Damages May Exceed Cost To Repair

Peter Selvin | Ervin Cohen & Jessup

Construction defect cases often involve damage claims beyond simply the cost to repair the allegedly defective unit or component. These consequential damages may include damages for loss of use, expenses for mitigation and even attorney fees. For this reason, builders, suppliers, contractors and subcontractors who are faced with such claims should carefully review their insurance coverages, especially their CGL policies.

At the threshold, a defendant seeking coverage under its CGL policy in connection with a construction defect claim must satisfy the policy’s “occurrence” requirement. Although there is a split of authority on this point nationally, California law is settled that inadvertent property damage caused by intended construction activity constitutes an “occurrence.” See, e.g., Geddes & Smith v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 51 Cal. 2d 558, 563 (1959); Anthem Electronics v. Pacific  Employers Insurance, 302 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2002). See also Scott C. Turner, “Insurance Coverage of Construction Disputes,” Sections 6:56, 6:62 (2nd Ed.).

The next step is to establish that there has been “property damage.” This is because the basic coverage grant typically provides that the CGL insurer is responsible for paying “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of … property damage to which this insurance applies.” In turn, “property damage” is typically defined as either “physical injury to or destruction of tangible property … including the loss of use … resulting therefrom” or “loss of use of tangible property which has not been physically injured or destroyed [that has been] caused by an occurrence.”

It has been generally held that incorporation of defective components or faulty workmanship into a project constitutes “physical injury to tangible property,” thereby allowing coverage for damages from the loss, including damages measured by resulting decrease in the property’s value. See, e.g., United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Wilken Insulation Co., 550 N.E. 2d 1032 (Ill.App. 1989). The theory behind this rationale is that typical a coverage grant requires the CGL carrier to pay “those sums that insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of … property damage” (emphasis added). In other words, carrier responsibility includes not only damages that arise directly from the “property damage,” but also all sums arising because of the property damage. See, e.g., AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 3d. 807 (1990) (reimbursement of response costs and the costs of injunctive relief under CERCLA and related statutes are insured “because of” property damage). While not exhaustive, the following examples illustrate some of the categories of consequential damages for which a CGL carrier may have responsibility.

Damage to the Larger Structure Caused by the Construction Defect

It is well established that damage to a physical structure, including the structure’s non-defective units or components, arising from the incorporation of the defective work should be covered under a CGL policy. See e.g., Economy Lumber v. Insurance Company of North America, 157 Cal. App. 3d 641 (1984). In some cases, damages are expressed as the diminution in value of the larger structure caused by the construction defect. See Franco Belli Plumbing & Heating v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2830247, *8 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“when one product is integrated into a larger entity, and the component product proves defective, the harm is considered harm to the entity to the extent that the market value of the entity is reduced in excess of the value of the defective component”); see also Anthem Electronics 302 F.3d at 1056-57 (“we decline to hold that coverage was precluded simply because the extent of such damage is expressed as an economic loss”).

So-Called “Rip and Tear” Damages

Where an owner must undertake repair work to existing conditions in order to access and remediate the defective work, the damages resulting therefrom may be covered. Thus, costs and expenses relating to this activity are considered part of consequential damages for which there should be coverage. Turner, supra, Section 6.29 (coverage for the damage to other, non-defective work necessarily caused in the course of removing or repairing the defective work).

Coverage for Costs Arising from Mitigation Efforts

In some cases, an owner may be obliged to take actions and incur expenses in order to protect the project from further damage caused by the alleged defect. Although the courts are split on this issue, the majority say these expenses are also considered as part of consequential damages for which there should be coverage. Turner, supra, Section 6.14, 6.22 (“costs incurred for mitigation or prevention of further property damage” are recoverable against CGL carrier).

Loss of Use

Damage resulting from the loss of use of the premises is a key item within the larger category of consequential damages. Am. Home Assurance v. Libbey-Owens-Ford, 786 F. 2d 22,  25 (1st Cir. 1986); Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Concrete Units, 363 N. W. 2d 751 (Minn. 1985); Gibraltar Casualty Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 214 Ill. App. 3d 768 (1990); Lucker Manufacturing Co. v. The Home Insurance Co., 23 F. 3d 808 (3rd Cir. 1994); M. Mooney Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 618 A.2d 793, 796 (N. H. 1992); Thee Sombrero v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 28 Cal. App. 5th 729 (2018); Turner, supra, Section 6:33.

Attorney Fees Awards

Some courts have held that attorney fees awards against the negligent contractor, subcontractor or supplier qualify as an element of consequential damages recoverable under a CGL policy. For example, in APL Co. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 754 F.2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2010), reversed on other grounds, 541 Fed. Appx. 770 (2013), the court concluded that the attorney fees award against the insured was covered under the insurance policy at issue. The court cited the policy provision there that coverage was provided for “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of …’property damage.’” The court noted that inasmuch as the insured became obligated to pay attorneys’ fees to the claimant arising out of the underlying property damage claim, the award was properly recoverable against the insurer. 754 F.2d at 1094.

Other cases have reached the same result. See, e.g., American Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Spectre West Building Corp., 2011 WL 488891 (D. Az. Feb. 4, 2011) (in the context of a construction defect case, the Court found that attorneys’ fees that were assessed against the insured were covered under the insurance policy, noting that “the issue before the court is not whether attorneys’ fees and costs can be characterized as ‘property damage’, but whether they can be characterized as damages that [the defendant construction company] became legally obligated to pay because of property damage”).

In Brief: Commercial General Liability Policies in USA

Bryce L. Friedman and Mary Beth Forshaw | Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

Standard commercial general liability policies

Bodily injury

What constitutes bodily injury under a standard CGL policy?

CGL policies generally provide coverage for bodily injury or property damage sustained by third parties (rather than the policyholder) as a result of an occurrence.

Insurance coverage litigation frequently centres on whether the underlying claims against the policyholder allege bodily injury or property damage within the meaning of the applicable insurance policy, and whether the events giving rise to the injury or damage were caused by an occurrence.

The phrase ‘bodily injury’ in insurance contracts generally connotes a physical problem. However, a number of courts have ruled that the term also encompasses non-physical or emotional distress, either standing alone or accompanied by physical manifestations.

The question of whether bodily injury exists may also arise where an underlying complaint alleges non-traditional or quasi-physical harm, such as biological or cellular level injury or medical monitoring claims. Courts addressing these and other analogous bodily injury questions have arrived at mixed decisions. Bodily injury determinations are often case-specific, turning on the particular factual record presented.

Property damage

What constitutes property damage under a standard CGL policy?

Property damage typically requires injury to or loss of use of tangible property. Therefore, the mere risk of future damage is generally insufficient to constitute property damage. Similarly, it is generally held that the inclusion of a defective component in a product, standing alone, does not constitute property damage. Numerous other allegations of harm or potential harm to property have generally been deemed to fall outside the scope of covered property damage, including the following:

  • injury to intangible property (such as computer data);
  • injury to goodwill or reputation;
  • pure economic loss; and
  • diminished property value.

However, although economic loss is not equated with property damage, courts may use a policyholder’s economic loss as a measure of damages for property damage where physical damage is found to exist.


What constitutes an occurrence under a standard CGL policy?

Virtually all modern-day general liability insurance policies provide coverage for an occurrence that takes place during the policy period. The insurance term ‘occurrence’ is typically equated with or defined as an accident or an event that results in damage or injury that was unexpected and unintended by the policyholder.

Insurance litigation frequently involves several issues relating to the occurrence requirement:

  • whether intentional conduct that results in unexpected or unintended harm constitutes an occurrence;
  • whether negligent conduct that results in expected or intended harm constitutes an occurrence;
  • whether an event or series of events constitutes a single occurrence or multiple occurrences;
  • whether the occurrence falls within a given policy period (ie, what is the operative event that triggers a policy?); and
  • how insurance obligations should be divided among multiple insurers (or the policyholder) when an occurrence spans multiple policy periods (ie, allocation).

Although it is a widely accepted principle that insurance policies provide coverage only for fortuitous events, and cannot insure against intentional or wilful conduct, it is less clear whether (and under what circumstances) intentional conduct that results in unexpected and unforeseen damage can constitute a covered occurrence. This question has arisen in a multitude of factual contexts, including claims arising out of faulty workmanship, pollution and fax blasting in violation of federal statutes. In evaluating the occurrence issue, some courts focus on the initial conduct of the policyholder, while other courts look to whether the resulting harm was unexpected or unintended.

How is the number of covered occurrences determined?

The determination of whether damage or injury is caused by a single occurrence or by multiple occurrences has significant implications for available coverage. The number of occurrences may impact both the policyholder’s responsibility for deductible payments and the per occurrence policy limits that are available. Thus, it is a hotly contested issue in insurance litigation. Most courts utilise a cause-based analysis to determine the number of occurrences. Under the cause-oriented approach, if there is one proximate cause of the injury, there is one occurrence, regardless of the number of claims or incidents of harm.

In contrast, under an effects-oriented analysis, the focus is on the number of discrete injury-causing events.

A number of occurrences disputes arise in virtually all substantive areas of insurance litigation, including claims arising out of asbestos, environmental harm, natural disasters, and the manufacture or distribution of harmful products.


What event or events trigger insurance coverage?

Litigation that centres on whether a given policy period has been implicated by an occurrence is generally referred to as a ‘trigger of coverage’ dispute. ‘Trigger’ describes what must happen within the policy period for an insurer’s coverage obligations to be implicated. In cases involving ongoing or continuous property damage or personal injury, the question of what triggers policy coverage may be complex. From a legal perspective, courts employ several different methods to resolve trigger disputes. For bodily injury claims, the operative trigger event has been held to be:

  • at the time of exposure to a harmful substance;
  • at the time the injury manifests itself;
  • at the time of actual ‘injury in fact’; or
  • a combination or inclusion of all of the above.

Property damage claims have also given rise to multiple trigger approaches, some of which focus on the initial event that set the property damage into motion, while others look to the time that physical damage became evident. From a factual perspective, parties are often required to submit voluminous evidence in support of their position as to when property damage or bodily injury actually occurred. Expert witnesses are often retained to address trigger issues.

How is insurance coverage allocated across multiple insurance policies?

When an occurrence triggers multiple policy periods, disputes frequently arise as to how indemnity costs should be allocated among various insurers. The emerging trend in courts in the United States is a pro rata approach, which apportions loss among triggered policies based on insurers’ proportionate responsibilities. In applying pro rata allocation, courts have considered:

  • the time that each insurer is on the risk;
  • the policy limits of each triggered policy;
  • the proportion of injuries during each policy; or
  • a combination of these and other factors.

Pro rata allocation also typically contemplates policyholder responsibility for periods of no coverage or insufficient coverage. The pro rata allocation approach stems from policy language that limits insurers’ obligations to damage ‘during the policy period’. Some jurisdictions that utilise a pro rata approach recognise an ‘unavailabilty’ exception. The unavailability exception provides that apportionment to the insured for uninsured periods is not warranted if insurance was unavailable in the marketplace during the relevant time frame. If this unavailability is established, losses during the uninsured periods are allocated among the insurers.

A minority of courts endorse a joint and several liability approach, under which a policyholder is entitled to select a single policy from multiple triggered policies from which to seek indemnification. This approach stems from common policy language requiring an insurer to pay ‘all sums’ that the policyholder becomes legally obligated to pay. Notably, even courts that endorse all sums allocation typically allow a targeted insurer to pursue contributions from other triggered insurers.

Law stated date

Correct on

Give the date on which the information above is accurate.

18 November 2020