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: RE: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily injury f
Posted On: May 29, 2008, 9:57 am CDT
Posted By: Mrs. Kramer
Comment:
Dear Mr. Boggs,
I DID read your first commentary posted last week (5/20) along with your newest one. And whether intentional or not, I am still of the opinion that you are attempting to discuss a $4M (not $3M in total) jury verdict in conjunction with the concept that this somehow has something to do with bodily injury claims and resultant coverage/liability from mold exposure. Again, the large jury verdict in your example case was not for bodily injury.
Some examples of why it would appear to me that you are (intentionally or not) scaring the builders and insurers that mold bodily injuries cost them much money: Title II "CGL Extends Coverage for Injury Arising from Defective Construction". Quote from fist line in second series: "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 growth and proliferation of mold covered because it is not excluded by the unendorsed CGL?… Prompted by this verdict, the availability of insurance coverage to pay for injury or damage resulting from defective construction and/or mold was explored on this same Website. In last week's first of three commentaries, the four commercial general liability coverage triggers were documented, and three were specifically applied to construction defect and mold claims…. The final coverage trigger question was left unanswered. Open for discussion and debate among readers this past week has been the question: was the injury or damage the result of a specific exclusion, excluded action or an excluded cause? Although three of the four requirements for coverage have been hypothetically satisfied, all four must be met before coverage exists. If the fourth trigger question is answered "yes,' then no coverage is available for injury."
Insurance policy lingo and coverage is not my area of expertise. Maybe I am not following what concept you are attempting to address with this discussion. Can you answer these questions for me to help me understand? I know that mold is excluded from many policies. But people and businesses do not get sued for mold. They get sued for not properly addressing a construction defect problem or properly handling the claim when the defect is found. Sometimes, the lack of timely and appropriate action is what causes mold - not the construction defect itself.
Where within your writing is the justification for the question of mold coverage for bodily injury from construction defect being treated differently than any other injury from construction defect? Why would coverage for bodily injury from mold be any different than coverage for falling down the steps from a defectively built stairway and then the builder refusing to repair the steps? Are you saying injuries from falling down the defective stairway should not be covered and the builder is not obligated to fix them?
You asked, "Now tell me, how do you think CGL policies respond to Defective Construction and Mold claims in general.." That's a pretty broad (and loaded!) question. I could write you a dissertation on that one that would take you in and out of Washington DC. In and out of medical trade associations, courtrooms, think-tanks and teaching hospitals. That's why I think if you are only trying to determine appropriate CGL coverage for bodily injury from construction defect and the builder's & insurer's responsibility to address the matter, you should use a more simplified injury other than mold when discussing the matter. Just my two cents.
BTW, if I was a reputable builder or insurer in Ohio, I would be watching a particular case and praying they don't try to appeal it. Mold or no mold, when attempting to run from past misdeeds, shoddy builders and their unfortunate insurers can cause the establishment of case law that hurts us all.
Subject: RE: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily injury f
I DID read your first commentary posted last week (5/20) along with your newest one. And whether intentional or not, I am still of the opinion that you are attempting to discuss a $4M (not $3M in total) jury verdict in conjunction with the concept that this somehow has something to do with bodily injury claims and resultant coverage/liability from mold exposure. Again, the large jury verdict in your example case was not for bodily injury.
Some examples of why it would appear to me that you are (intentionally or not) scaring the builders and insurers that mold bodily injuries cost them much money: Title II "CGL Extends Coverage for Injury Arising from Defective Construction". Quote from fist line in second series: "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 growth and proliferation of mold covered because it is not excluded by the unendorsed CGL?… Prompted by this verdict, the availability of insurance coverage to pay for injury or damage resulting from defective construction and/or mold was explored on this same Website. In last week's first of three commentaries, the four commercial general liability coverage triggers were documented, and three were specifically applied to construction defect and mold claims…. The final coverage trigger question was left unanswered. Open for discussion and debate among readers this past week has been the question: was the injury or damage the result of a specific exclusion, excluded action or an excluded cause? Although three of the four requirements for coverage have been hypothetically satisfied, all four must be met before coverage exists. If the fourth trigger question is answered "yes,' then no coverage is available for injury."
Insurance policy lingo and coverage is not my area of expertise. Maybe I am not following what concept you are attempting to address with this discussion. Can you answer these questions for me to help me understand? I know that mold is excluded from many policies. But people and businesses do not get sued for mold. They get sued for not properly addressing a construction defect problem or properly handling the claim when the defect is found. Sometimes, the lack of timely and appropriate action is what causes mold - not the construction defect itself.
Where within your writing is the justification for the question of mold coverage for bodily injury from construction defect being treated differently than any other injury from construction defect? Why would coverage for bodily injury from mold be any different than coverage for falling down the steps from a defectively built stairway and then the builder refusing to repair the steps? Are you saying injuries from falling down the defective stairway should not be covered and the builder is not obligated to fix them?
You asked, "Now tell me, how do you think CGL policies respond to Defective Construction and Mold claims in general.." That's a pretty broad (and loaded!) question. I could write you a dissertation on that one that would take you in and out of Washington DC. In and out of medical trade associations, courtrooms, think-tanks and teaching hospitals. That's why I think if you are only trying to determine appropriate CGL coverage for bodily injury from construction defect and the builder's & insurer's responsibility to address the matter, you should use a more simplified injury other than mold when discussing the matter. Just my two cents.
BTW, if I was a reputable builder or insurer in Ohio, I would be watching a particular case and praying they don't try to appeal it. Mold or no mold, when attempting to run from past misdeeds, shoddy builders and their unfortunate insurers can cause the establishment of case law that hurts us all.