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: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily inju
Posted On: May 29, 2008, 10:50 am CDT
Posted By: Chris Boggs
Comment:
Dear Mrs. Kramer,
I truly can't help if you've developed the wrong opinion or belief, that is something I can't fix. They are yours and are as valid as anyone else's.
This is wholly a commentary on liability coverage for construction defects and mold - taken collectively and detailed separately. Understanding insurance and its lingo is very important to these concepts. You're right that construction defect leading to any bodily injury would potentially be covered, which is one of the reasons I used the example of an improperly installed chandelier - I may have made a error of assumption that readers would make the correlation (yes, improperly installed stairs in your example would likely be covered). But don't confuse a court case and its findings with a discussion of coverage issues. My concern is not on what basis the case was tried - the point was to debate the availability of liability insurance coverage for the builder if a claim were made for construction defects or mold using examples from an interesting current event.
The next commentary will specifically address mold damage, but without giving too much away, bodily injury from mold is not necessarily excluded in the unendorsed CGL policy, but there are some endorsements that make it VERY different than other bodily injury claims resulting from defective construction (or any other causes) - that's the reason mold is coupled with defective construction in this series. Remember we are talking about liability coverage, not property. Mold damage is usually (almost always) excluded or severely limited in property policies, but not liability.
In regards to mold, I don't need to do anything to scare the industry - they are already afraid of it, that's the reason fungi and mold exclusionary endorsements are religiously attached to general liability policies, especially to any insured's policy in the building industry.
I completely agree with your statement that it is the lack of addressing the mold in a timely manner that inflames the problem, but the insidious thing about mold is, it might remain hidden UNTIL is causes a problem. If it's growing in the crawl space or some other area where no one ever goes, no one is likely to know about it until someone gets sick - then it's there and it has already begun to cause property damage and bodily injury potentially leading to questions of coverage.
I guess I don't understand why anyone would have to bring in any medical associations, DC or any other groups to have an opinion as to whether coverage exists in the CGL for bodily injury or property damage caused by defective construction, mold or any other cause; it's simply a coverage question involving coverage triggers and exclusions. Change on your two cents.
Builders, in fact all trades and professions, should undertake to do the best for their customers and clients - I'll agree wholeheartedly with you about that - the sad part is, only a few people care as much as you obviously do about doing the right thing.
Mrs. Kramer, I very much appreciate your comments and your willingness to take part in this discussion.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Case misstated. Ohio $4M was NOT for bodily inju
I truly can't help if you've developed the wrong opinion or belief, that is something I can't fix. They are yours and are as valid as anyone else's.
This is wholly a commentary on liability coverage for construction defects and mold - taken collectively and detailed separately. Understanding insurance and its lingo is very important to these concepts. You're right that construction defect leading to any bodily injury would potentially be covered, which is one of the reasons I used the example of an improperly installed chandelier - I may have made a error of assumption that readers would make the correlation (yes, improperly installed stairs in your example would likely be covered). But don't confuse a court case and its findings with a discussion of coverage issues. My concern is not on what basis the case was tried - the point was to debate the availability of liability insurance coverage for the builder if a claim were made for construction defects or mold using examples from an interesting current event.
The next commentary will specifically address mold damage, but without giving too much away, bodily injury from mold is not necessarily excluded in the unendorsed CGL policy, but there are some endorsements that make it VERY different than other bodily injury claims resulting from defective construction (or any other causes) - that's the reason mold is coupled with defective construction in this series. Remember we are talking about liability coverage, not property. Mold damage is usually (almost always) excluded or severely limited in property policies, but not liability.
In regards to mold, I don't need to do anything to scare the industry - they are already afraid of it, that's the reason fungi and mold exclusionary endorsements are religiously attached to general liability policies, especially to any insured's policy in the building industry.
I completely agree with your statement that it is the lack of addressing the mold in a timely manner that inflames the problem, but the insidious thing about mold is, it might remain hidden UNTIL is causes a problem. If it's growing in the crawl space or some other area where no one ever goes, no one is likely to know about it until someone gets sick - then it's there and it has already begun to cause property damage and bodily injury potentially leading to questions of coverage.
I guess I don't understand why anyone would have to bring in any medical associations, DC or any other groups to have an opinion as to whether coverage exists in the CGL for bodily injury or property damage caused by defective construction, mold or any other cause; it's simply a coverage question involving coverage triggers and exclusions. Change on your two cents.
Builders, in fact all trades and professions, should undertake to do the best for their customers and clients - I'll agree wholeheartedly with you about that - the sad part is, only a few people care as much as you obviously do about doing the right thing.
Mrs. Kramer, I very much appreciate your comments and your willingness to take part in this discussion.