CGL Extends Coverage for Injury Arising from Defective Construction
National News • May 28, 2008
Property damage resulting from defective construction is unquestionably excluded in the commercial general liability policy; but what about bodily injury? And is injury or damage caused by the ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily injury from mold
Posted On: May 28, 2008, 9:48 pm CDT
Posted By: Mrs. Kramer
Comment:
Dear Mr. Boggs,
By choosing the $4M Ohio verdict/award - Cosner v. Maronda Homes of Ohio Inc., No. 06 CV 008278 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pls., Franklin Cty.)- as the foundation for a discussion regarding personal injury claims from mold induced illness in defective construction/CGL coverage, you have picked a poor example. CGL was not forced to "extend coverage for [mold exposure] injury arising from defective construction" because this case had no claims of personal injury from mold exposure. As I understand it, there were no physicians or toxicoilogical PhD experts that were even called to testify for the defense in the trial, only an engineer who testified of structural matters and an industrial hygienist who stated that excessive mold growth and its metabolites in a structure do have the potential to cause human illness.
It would be incorrect to promote that personal injury claims from mold in new construction are causing exorbitant costs for builders and insurers while citing this $4M case. It would not be correct to instill financial fear of mold injury liability in insurers and builders based on this incorrect information. What this could cause, however, is for industry to attempt to further influence public policy that will deny these illnesses even more than they already do, which will allow people to become sicker than they should from lack of early intervention/treatment, which WILL increase the financial damages in some construction defect cases.
None of the monies awarded in this case was for personal injury to the health of the family from mold exposure. So...this case has nothing to do with if bodily injury is excluded in the commercial general liability policy, as is stated in the title of your document. According to Harris Martin Publishing, "The jurors found that Maronda was in breach of the contract, engaged in unfair, deceptive or unconscionable acts or practices, misrepresented the house's characteristics, failed to honor warranties, failed to perform in a workmanlike manner, and was guilty of malice, supporting an award of punitive damages."
Pure and simple, this case was all about breach of contract, consumer sales practices act violations and the emotional distress this caused to the buyers.
Subject: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily injury from mold
By choosing the $4M Ohio verdict/award - Cosner v. Maronda Homes of Ohio Inc., No. 06 CV 008278 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pls., Franklin Cty.)- as the foundation for a discussion regarding personal injury claims from mold induced illness in defective construction/CGL coverage, you have picked a poor example. CGL was not forced to "extend coverage for [mold exposure] injury arising from defective construction" because this case had no claims of personal injury from mold exposure. As I understand it, there were no physicians or toxicoilogical PhD experts that were even called to testify for the defense in the trial, only an engineer who testified of structural matters and an industrial hygienist who stated that excessive mold growth and its metabolites in a structure do have the potential to cause human illness.
It would be incorrect to promote that personal injury claims from mold in new construction are causing exorbitant costs for builders and insurers while citing this $4M case. It would not be correct to instill financial fear of mold injury liability in insurers and builders based on this incorrect information. What this could cause, however, is for industry to attempt to further influence public policy that will deny these illnesses even more than they already do, which will allow people to become sicker than they should from lack of early intervention/treatment, which WILL increase the financial damages in some construction defect cases.
None of the monies awarded in this case was for personal injury to the health of the family from mold exposure. So...this case has nothing to do with if bodily injury is excluded in the commercial general liability policy, as is stated in the title of your document. According to Harris Martin Publishing, "The jurors found that Maronda was in breach of the contract, engaged in unfair, deceptive or unconscionable acts or practices, misrepresented the house's characteristics, failed to honor warranties, failed to perform in a workmanlike manner, and was guilty of malice, supporting an award of punitive damages."
Pure and simple, this case was all about breach of contract, consumer sales practices act violations and the emotional distress this caused to the buyers.