construction defect update - insurance coverage litigation section - september 27, 2013 - tred r....
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE
Insurance Coverage Litigation Section September 27, 2013
Tred R. EyerlyDamon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert(808) [email protected]: www.insurancelawhawaii
220165
1
![Page 2: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
UPDATE
DISPUTE OVER INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
2
![Page 3: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Background
Insuring Agreement – We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . “property damage” to which this insurance applies. This insurance applies to “property damage” only if the “property damage” is caused by an “occurrence” and the “property damage” occurs during the policy period.
![Page 4: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
“Property Damage” –
(a) Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property; or
(b) Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.
![Page 5: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
“Occurrence” – an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.
![Page 6: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Business Risk Exclusions:
(j) (6) This insurance does not apply to that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed on it.
![Page 7: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Business Risk Exclusions:
(l) This insurance does not apply to “property damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it . . .
This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor.
![Page 8: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Duty to Defend
Duty to Indemnify
![Page 9: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Duty to Defend
Determined by the allegations in the complaint against the insured - is there any possibility of coverage under the policy?
Complaint Allegation Rule.
Duty to Defend determined at the time of tender. Insurer cannot rely upon extrinsic evidence.
![Page 10: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Duty to Indemnify
After the facts are established, must the insurer pay claims under the policy?
Insurer can rely on extrinsic evidence, i.e., facts established in the underlying case.
![Page 11: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Nationwide Debate over Coverage for Construction Defects:
Does “property damage” caused by faulty workmanship arise from an “occurrence”, i.e., accident?”
![Page 12: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
One View:
No Coverage for Construction Defects.
12
![Page 13: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Construction Defects do Not Arise from Occurrence, but from:
(1) expected or intended result; or
(2) breach of contract. No Occurrence = No Coverage
13
![Page 14: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
• Leading Case: Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 405 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1979)
· Peeling, cracking of stucco wall -no occurrence
· Harm caused to neighbor - occurrence
14
![Page 15: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Recent Case: Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. R. M. Shoemaker Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (3d Cir. 3/25/13) (Pennsylvania law)
![Page 16: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Another view:
Construction Defects Covered
![Page 17: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Another view:
Property damage based upon faulty workmanship arises from an “occurrence” (i.e., accident).
Leading Case:
Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 673 N.W. 2d 65 (Wis. 2004).
17
![Page 18: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Am. Girl, Inc.
∙ Sinking, buckling of warehouse was physical injury to tangible property.
· Faulty site preparation on advice of soil engineer was accidental, not intentional.
But, once “occurrence” is established, turn to Business Risk exclusions.
18
![Page 19: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Several Recent Cases
Big-D Constr. Corp. v. Take It for Granite Too, 917 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (D. Nev. 1/22/13) (Federal Court Prediction)
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. AMSCO Windows, 2013 921 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Utah 2/5/13) (Federal Court Prediction)
K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 829 N.W. 2d 724 (N.D. 4/5/13)
![Page 20: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
More Recent Cases Finding Occurrence:
Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 67 A. 3d 961(Conn. 6/11/13)
Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 745 S.E. 2d 508 (W.V. 6/18/13)
Taylor Morrison Serv. v. HDI-Gerling Am Ins. Co., 2013 Ga. LEXIS 618 (Ga. 7/12/13)
![Page 21: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Current Trend:
Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 745 S.E. 2d 508 (W.V. 6/18/13)
· Coverage denied to contractor for faulty construction of home.
· Reversing itself, Court finds defective workmanship causing property damage is an “occurrence.”
![Page 22: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Hawaii Case Law Prior to Group Builders.
Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010).
22
![Page 23: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
o Group Builders relies primarily on Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr. Inc., 353 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004). Burlington predicts how Hawaii Supreme Court would rule.
23
![Page 24: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
o Group Builders I relies on Burlington
for guidance on Hawaii law.
24
![Page 25: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Burlington looks to federal district court, non-construction cases, holding that an expected result of insured’s intentional acts in performing a contract does not give rise to an “occurrence:”
25
WDC Venture v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 938 F. Supp. 671 (D. Haw. 1996) CIM Ins. Corp. v. Masamitsu, 74 F. Supp. 2d 975 (D. Haw. 1999) CIM Ins. Corp. v. Midpac Auto Ctr., Inc., 108 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. Haw. 2000)
![Page 26: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Burlington also relies on Hawaiian Holiday Macadamia Nut Co. v. Indus. Indem. Co. 76 Haw. 166 (1994) - Breach of contract case – intentional destruction of seedlings not accidental.
26
![Page 27: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
o Hawaii Supreme Court cases ignored by Burlington and Group Builders:
Sturla v. Fireman’s Fund, 67 Haw. 203 (1984) Hurtig v. Terminex Wood Treating & Contracting Co., 67 Haw. 480 (1984) Sentinel Ins. Co. v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 76 Haw. 277 (1994)
27
![Page 28: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
o Sturla – Risks insured by policy are “injury caused by a faulty product or workmanship.” Id., 67 Haw. at 210.
28
![Page 29: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
o Hurtig –Business risk exclusions do not bar coverage.
Before reaching business risk exclusions, must first find there was an occurrence.
29
![Page 30: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
o Sentinel – Court found defense owed where construction defects alleged. Even though breach of contract and breach of warranty claims alleged, Court found coverage.
30
![Page 31: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
• In response to Group Builders, legislature enacts Act 83 (codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:1-217)
“The meaning of the term ‘occurrence’ shall be construed in accordance with the law as it existed at the time that the insurance policy was issued.”
31
![Page 32: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Issue:
What was the meaning of “occurrence” when policy issued?
![Page 33: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Reaction of U.S. District Court (Hawaii) to Act 83.
33
![Page 34: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
• State Farm v. Vogelgesang, 2011 U.S. Dist. Ct. LEXIS 72618 (D. Haw. 2011). Insureds made no effort to demonstrate what the state of the law was when policy entered.
34
![Page 35: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
• Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Constr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58464 (D. Haw. 2012). Judge Mollway felt compelled to follow Burlington. Court also assumed Burlington and Group Builders must have taken Sturla, Hurtig, and Sentinel into account – even though this trilogy of cases is never mentioned in either Burlington and Group Builders.
35
![Page 36: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Nagano, 2012 WL 3800320 (D. Haw. Aug. 31, 2012) Judge Kobayashi largely follows Judge Mollway in Nordic PCL.
Actions of contractor arise from contract and are not occurrences.
36
![Page 37: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
• Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 3 Builders, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88480 (D. Haw. 6/24/13)
Policy issued before Burlington.
Judge Kobayashi finds meaning of “occurrence” controlled by Burlington – Suit for breach of contract after building sub-standard home was foreseeable.
37
![Page 38: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
• Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Simpson Mfg. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128481 (D. Haw. 2011) Judge Kay – “Hawaii legislature has specifically denounced Group Builders in very strong terms.”
38
![Page 39: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
• Some Hawaii Circuit Courts have different interpretation of Group Builders and Act 83.
39
![Page 40: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
o Judges Chang, Border, and Sakamoto questioned the viability of Group Builders in light of Act 83.
40
![Page 41: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Three Circuit Court Cases:
• Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Sunset Heights Hawaii, LLC, Civil No. 10-1-2184-10
• Coastal Constr. Co. v. N. Am. Specialty, Civil No. 11-1-0417-3
• The Pinnacle Honolulu, LLC v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., Civil No. 12-1-0526
41
![Page 42: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
o Judge Chang specifically agreed that the state of the law when the policy was issued was as stated in Sentinel, Sturla, and Hurtig.
42
![Page 43: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 Haw. App. LEXIS 207 (Haw. Ct. App. April 15, 2013)
Duty to Defend construction defect claims based upon policy language and allegations in underlying complaint.
![Page 44: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Admiral refused to defend because construction completed after its policy period.
Trial Court found duty to defend.
![Page 45: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
To deny duty to defend, Admiral would have to prove it would be “impossible” for Hilton to prevail against Group Builders on a claim covered by the policy.
![Page 46: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Admiral relied on expert testimony – mold growth commenced after Admiral’s policy period.
![Page 47: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
But Hilton’s complaint did not specify when mold growth began, when any property damage occurred, or what caused the mold to grow.
ICA assumes property damage occurred during Admiral’s policy period.
![Page 48: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Next Issue:
Were damages caused by defective workmanship an “occurrence” in 2003 during Admiral’s policy period?
![Page 49: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
Admiral owed a defense – courts were split on whether construction defect claims constituted an “occurrence.”
But what about Sentinel, Sturla and Hurtig?
![Page 50: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Admiral argues Business Risk Exclusions apply:
(j) (5) – excludes coverage for damages to that particular property resulting from or arising out of the ongoing operations of the insured.
![Page 51: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
But Hilton’s complaint does not specify which installation was defective, nor which parts of the construction project were damaged.
Possibility existed that the exclusions would not preclude coverage for all of Hilton’s claims against Group Builders.
Therefore, Admiral had a duty to defend.
![Page 52: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Summary:
In 2010, ICA established no indemnity coverage for construction defects.
In 2011, legislature enacted Act 83.
In 2013, Group Builders II finds duty to defend construction defect cases
What now?
![Page 53: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Rule 15, Rules of Appellate Procedure –
Reserved Questions.
![Page 54: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
MAHALO
54
![Page 55: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT UPDATE - Insurance Coverage Litigation Section - September 27, 2013 - Tred R. Eyerly](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062614/54644830b4af9f583f8b4927/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Thank You
Tred R. EyerlyDamon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert1600 Pauahi Tower1003 Bishop StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96813(808) [email protected]: www.insurancelawhawaii
#220165
55