{"id":893208,"date":"2017-11-16T11:49:13","date_gmt":"2017-11-16T18:49:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=893208"},"modified":"2017-11-16T11:49:13","modified_gmt":"2017-11-16T18:49:13","slug":"property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog<\/a> | November 13, 2017<\/p>\n

I read once that 97 percent of cases never go to trial. However, there are still\u00a0the ones that do. And, then, there are the ones that do both. The\u00a0following case,\u00a0Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc.<\/em>, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. E063551 (September 8, 2017),\u00a0highlights some of the issues\u00a0that can arise when portions of cases settle and other portions go to trial, the recovery of delay damages on a construction project through insurance, and the recovery of attorneys\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n

Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc.<\/em><\/h2>\n

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs contracted with general contractor Kadena Pacific, Inc. (Kadena) to oversee construction of its Center for Blind Rehabilitation in Menlo Park, California. Kadena, in turn, contracted with subcontractor Global Modular, Inc. (Global) to construct, deliver and install 53 modular units totaling\u00a0more than\u00a037,000 square feet for a contract price of approximately $3.5 million.<\/p>\n

Because Kadena had contracted with another subcontractor to install the roofing, Global agreed to deliver the units covered only by a roof deck substrate comprised of a three-quarter inch sheet of plywood. Delivery of the units was originally scheduled for the summer, however, due to project delays the units were not delivered until October and November.<\/p>\n

Well, you can guess what happened. \u00a0The rains came and the units were damaged.<\/p>\n

The Kadena-Global subcontract provided that Global would assume responsibility \u201cfor any loss or damage to the [units] . . . however caused, until final acceptance thereof by [Kadena].\u201d The contract conditioned \u201cfinal acceptance\u201d upon the VA\u2019s approval of the units. Kadena, however, as the general contractor, was responsible for the overall project schedule.<\/p>\n

When Global refused to pay Kadena, Kadena sued, and Global countersued for the water damage. Before trial, the parties entered into a partial settlement. Global paid Kadena $321,975 except for claims covered by Global\u2019s insurance policy with North American Capacity Insurance Company (NAC) and Global received $153,025 to dismiss \u00a0its failure-to-pay claims. At trial, Kadena presented evidence of its cost to repair the water damage and was awarded approximately $1 million.<\/p>\n

In a separate action brought by NAC, Kadena and NAC filed competing motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether NAC\u2019s policy required it to indemnify Global for the approximately $1 million award in the other action. The trial court ruled in favor of Kadena finding that the award was covered under the NAC policy. The trial court also ruled that the award should be offset by the $321,975 Global paid in settlement and that Global was liable to Kadena for $360,000 in attorneys\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n

NAC, Kadena, and Global each appealed, with: (1) NAC arguing that the water damage was not covered under its policy; (2) Kadena arguing that $321,975 settlement paid by Global should not be offset; and (3) Global and NAC arguing that the $360,000 in attorneys\u2019 fees should not have been awarded to Kadena.<\/p>\n

Messy enough for you?<\/p>\n

The Appeal<\/h2>\n

NAC\u2019s Argument That the Water Damage was Not Covered Under its Policy<\/strong><\/p>\n

On appeal, NAC, Global\u2019s insurer, argued that the water damage was not covered under its policy. Typical of commercial general liability insurance policies, the policy covered \u201cproperty damage\u201d caused by an \u201coccurrence,\u201d which was defined as \u201can accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.\u201d From this broad occurrence-based coverage, the policy carved out a variety of exclusions.<\/p>\n

One of those exclusions (Exclusion j(5)) excluded coverage for \u201c[t]hat particular part of real property in which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the \u2018property damage\u2019 arises out of those operations.\u201d NAC argued that the phrase \u201care performing operations,\u201d refers to works in progress and that the exclusion applies when property damage occurs before construction is complete and, because Global had not yet completed installation of the units, the exclusion applied. Global, on the other hand, argued that the phrase \u201care performing operations\u201d only applied to particular components Global was physically working on at the time of the property damage and, because the water intrusion occurred while Global \u00a0was not working on the units, the exclusion did not apply.<\/p>\n

Another exclusion (Exclusion j(6)) excluded coverage for \u201c[t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because \u2018your work\u2019 was incorrectly performed on it.\u201d NAC argued that, because Global inadequately waterproofed the units, Global\u2019s \u201cwork\u201d was \u201cincorrectly performed\u201d and the exclusion applied. Global, on the other hand, argued that the term \u201cwork\u201d refers to a product, such as warped or uneven floors, not to a process like covering units with plastic tarps, and that even if its waterproofing efforts were ineffective, the \u201cparticular part\u201d of the \u201cwork\u201d that was \u201cincorrectly performed\u201d was the use of a plywood substrate not the interior parts of the units.<\/p>\n

While acknowledging NAC\u2019s argument that commercial general liability insurance policies \u201care not designed to provide contractors and developers with coverage against claims their work is inferior or defective,\u201d the Court of Appeal stated, \u201c[t]he problem with NACs\u2019 argument is that it is based on its view of the underlying policy of commercial general liability insurance and not on an application of the policy language to the facts of the case.\u201d And, here, tarping the units, even if performed incorrectly or inadequately was not a part of Global\u2019s \u201cwork.\u201d<\/p>\n

With respect to Exclusion j(5), the Court of Appeals concluded that the active, present tense construction of the policy language,\u00a0\u201care performing operations,\u201d indicated that the exclusion only applies to damage caused during physical construction activities and, because Global was not physically working on the units at the time of the water damage, the exclusion did not apply. With respect to Exclusion j(6), the Court held that the \u201conly arguably defective components or parts of Global\u2019s work are the plastic tarps, as they failed to keep the water out,\u201d but \u201cmore importantly, there was no allegation\u00a0the items for which Kadena sought repair and replacement costs<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 the drywall, insulation, framing, and ducting \u2013\u00a0were defective<\/em>\u201d (emphasis in original).<\/p>\n

Result: Win for Global.<\/p>\n

NAC\u2019s Argument That Delay Damages Were Not Covered Under its Policy<\/strong><\/p>\n

On appeal, NAC further argued that the delay damages awarded for the 131 days Kadena spent remediating the water damage were not covered under its policy because it did not constitute \u201cproperty damage.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal disagreed stating, \u201ccontrary to NAC\u2019s contention, delay damages arising from \u201cproperty damage\u201d fall under the insuring clause, which obligates NAC to \u2018pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as\u00a0damages because of<\/em>\u00a0. . . . \u2018property damage\u2019 to which this insurance applies’\u201d (emphasis in original). While the policy does not define damages, held the Court, \u201ccourts generally interpret the term to mean payments made to compensate a party for direct and consequential injuries caused by the acts of another\u201d and \u201c[h]ere, the 131 days of remediation was time Kadena could have spent completing the project had the units\u2019 interiors not been damaged. That delay constitutes a consequential loss (a loss occasioned by the water intrusion) and as such, is part of the damages NAC must pay \u2018because of\u2019 property damage.\u201d<\/p>\n

Result: Win for Global.<\/p>\n

Global and NAC\u2019s Argument that Attorneys\u2019 Fees Were Not Recoverable by Kadena<\/strong><\/p>\n

On appeal, NAC and Global argued that attorneys\u2019 fees were not recoverable by Kadena because Kadena had released its right to obtain attorneys\u2019 fees under the terms of its settlement with Global.<\/p>\n

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1033 and 1033.5, explained the Court of Appeals, attorneys\u2019 fees can be claimed as costs if allowed under law or statute. Further explained the Court, the Kadena-Global subcontract included an attorneys\u2019 fee provision stating that Global \u201cexpressly agrees\u201d to pay the reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees Kadena incurs in \u201cenforcing any provision or obligation arising under the contract.\u201d This provision, while a one-way attorneys\u2019 fee provision permitting only Kadena to recover attorneys\u2019 fees, became bilateral under Civil Code section 1717, which provides:<\/p>\n

In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney\u2019s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney\u2019s fees in addition to other costs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Because the settlement agreement was intended to resolve all of the parties disputes except for claims NAC would cover, the agreement obtained two provisions, one releasing \u201call claims\u201d\u00a0arising from the VA project and another carving out a limited subset of claims arising from the VA project that the parties were reserving for trial:<\/p>\n

4.1.1 Notwithstanding the language of Civil Code section 1542 and waiver provided in Section 4.2 of this Agreement, it is the parties\u2019 express intent and they so agree that this agreement\u00a0does not release claims from the Project related to\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0property damage, personal injury, [loss] of use and other claims that are covered under the [NAC] insurance policies described in Section 4.9.1 of this Agreement, true and accurate copies of which are attached to this Agreement as Exhibits \u201cA\u201d and \u201cB\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(emphasis in original).<\/p>\n

Based on this language, held the Court of Appeals, the settlement agreement allows Kadena to pursue its water damage claim and, as the prevailing party, to seek attorneys\u2019 fees as part of that claim.<\/p>\n

Result: Win for Kadena.<\/p>\n

Kadena\u2019s Argument that the $321,975 Settlement Paid by Global Should Not be Offset<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, on appeal, Kadena argued that the $321,975 settlement paid by Global should not offset the $1 million damage award covered by NAC\u2019s policy because the payment represented payment in exchange for Kadena\u2019s release of claims other than its water damage claim. In support of its argument, Kadena pointed to the Kadena-Global settlement agreement, which provided that the parties were agreeing to release all claims against one another\u00a0except<\/em>\u00a0for claims from the project \u201crelated to\u201d claims covered by NAC\u2019s policy.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe equitable concept of offset,\u201d explained the Court of Appeals, \u201crecognizes it is unfair to require a defendant to compensate a plaintiff twice for the same injury.\u201d \u201cThus, to warrant offset, Global\u2019s settlement payment to Kadena must have compensated Kadena\u00a0for the same harm<\/em>\u00a0as the jury\u2019s damage award.\u201d But here, held the Court, the jury was instructed by the trial court that any awarded damages should be limited to damages related to water remediation only and not to defective workmanship or pre-rain delays.<\/p>\n

Result: Win for NAC.<\/p>\n

Isn\u2019t it\u00a0nice when everyone\u2019s\u00a0a winner?<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Global Modular\u00a0<\/em>underscores that, while commercial general liability policies are not intended to serve as a warranty covering poor workmanship, they do cover \u201cproperty damage\u201d that \u201coccurs\u201d from poor workmanship. Further, the case clarifies that delay damages may be recoverable depending on the language of the insurance policy. And, finally, the case serves as a\u00a0reminder that when settling portions of a case, it is important to\u00a0be\u00a0clear what specific\u00a0portions of a case are being settled, as parties may not seek damages for those settled portions, or an offset may apply.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog | November 13, 2017 I read once that 97 percent of cases never go to trial. However, there are still\u00a0the ones that do. And, then, there are the ones that do both. The\u00a0following case,\u00a0Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District,… Continue reading Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,30,9914,9721],"tags":[309,9895,88,4739,322,310,56],"class_list":["post-893208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-defects","category-general-liability-policy","category-insurance-coverage","category-property-damage","tag-occurrence","tag-advise-consult","tag-california","tag-commercial-general-liability-policy","tag-construction-insurance","tag-poor-workmanship","tag-property-damage","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nProperty Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"commercial general liability policies aren't intended to serve as a warranty covering poor workmanship, they do cover property damage from poor workmanship\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"commercial general liability policies aren't intended to serve as a warranty covering poor workmanship, they do cover property damage from poor workmanship\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-11-16T18:49:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-11-16T18:49:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/\"},\"wordCount\":1882,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"\\\"Occurrence\\\"\",\"Advise & Consult\",\"california\",\"Commercial General Liability Policy\",\"Construction Insurance\",\"Poor Workmanship\",\"property damage\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Defects\",\"General Liability Policy\",\"Insurance Coverage\",\"Property Damage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/\",\"name\":\"Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-11-16T18:49:13+00:00\",\"description\":\"commercial general liability policies aren't intended to serve as a warranty covering poor workmanship, they do cover property damage from poor workmanship\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"commercial general liability policies aren't intended to serve as a warranty covering poor workmanship, they do cover property damage from poor workmanship","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"commercial general liability policies aren't intended to serve as a warranty covering poor workmanship, they do cover property damage from poor workmanship","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2017-11-16T18:49:13+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues","datePublished":"2017-11-16T18:49:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/"},"wordCount":1882,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["\"Occurrence\"","Advise & Consult","california","Commercial General Liability Policy","Construction Insurance","Poor Workmanship","property damage"],"articleSection":["Construction Defects","General Liability Policy","Insurance Coverage","Property Damage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/","name":"Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-11-16T18:49:13+00:00","description":"commercial general liability policies aren't intended to serve as a warranty covering poor workmanship, they do cover property damage from poor workmanship","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-damage-occurrences-delays-offsets-fees-california-decision-smorgasbord-construction-insurance-issues\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3KmA","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=893208"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893208\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":893209,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/893208\/revisions\/893209"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=893208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=893208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=893208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}