Ninth Circuit Hands Oregon Policyholders a Major Win on"Known Loss"

In a June 25, 2015, to-be-published decision in Kaady v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. the Ninth Circuit adopted a decidedly pro-policyholder interpretation of the oft-contested "known loss" provision that is standard in commercial general liability (CGL) policies, holding that an insured's knowledge of damage to one part of a structure does not allow an insurer to deny coverage for  damage to other parts of the same structure or for a different type of damage to the structure.

Kaady, a masonry subcontractor, installed manufactured stone and masonry caps at a condominium project on Mount Hood.  After the project was complete Kaady was notified that there were cracks in the stone that he had installed.  Later that year Kaady bought a liability policy from Mid-Continent.  Kaady was then sued by the condo association, which alleged that his defective work had contributed to water damage to wood sheathing behind the manufactured stone, and to deck posts on which the masonry caps were sitting.

Mid-Continent denied coverage for those damages under its policy’s "known-loss" provision,  which stated that the policy “applies to . . . property damage only if . . . no insured . . . knew that the . . . property damage had occurred, in whole or in part.”  The policy also excluded coverage for property damage that is a "continuation, change or resumption" of "such [known] property damage."  The policy defined "property damage" in part as "physical injury to tangible property."

In the coverage lawsuit suit the insurer advanced two arguments to justify its denial:  1) that prior knowledge of  any damage to a structure means that any other damage to the same structure is a "known loss;" and 2) that the damage to the sheathing and posts was a "continuation change or resumption" of the cracking that the insured knew about.  The District Court granted summary judgment for Mid-Continent based on the known-loss provision.  The Ninth Circuit reversed.

The insurer argued that the policy's references to "property" and "tangible property" included all portions of that "property," and therefore that knowledge of damage to one portion of "the property" could be attributed to all later damage to that property.  The appeals court disagreed, pointing out that that interpretation conflicts with the way "property" is used throughout CGL policies.  Standard-form policies distinguish between different types of "property" and rely on those distinctions to exclude some kinds of "property" from coverage, such as the insured's own "work" while providing coverage to other kinds of "property."  Therefore, to be consistent, the known-loss provision must operate to allow coverage for damage to some "property" even if the insured knew about damage to other "property" within the same structure.  Moreover, because the known-loss provision talks about knowledge of "the property damage," any damage different in type than the damage about which the insured had knowledge is not excluded by the policy.  In Kaady the damage (deterioration) to the sheathing and deck posts was different in type from the cracking that the insured knew about before buying the policy.

The court also rejected the second argument, holding that Mid-Continent had the burden on summary judgment of proving, through evidence, that the damage to the sheathing and posts was caused by the same cracks that the insured knew about before he bought the policy.  The insurer had failed to put on such evidence, and so summary judgment should not have been granted.

In this decision the Ninth Circuit adopted arguments that have been advanced by policyholders for years, but had not been the subject of a published Oregon state court ruling, creating some uncertainty.  "Known-loss" disputes come up with some frequency, because Oregon law requires property owners to give notice to contractors of alleged defects and an opportunity to cure, and because "punch-list" provisions in standard construction contracts often require owners to give contractors an opportunity to fix problems that occur soon after construction.  This decision will therefore make it difficult for insurers that operate in good faith to deny claims based on "known loss."

Oregon Supreme Court Accepts Review of Two Important Insurance Disputes

The Oregon Supreme Court recently accepted for review two cases with potentially lasting implications for insurance coverage disputes in the state.

The first case is a mandamus ruling - the court decided to accept for review a trial court's ruling in Liberty Surplus Insurance v. Seabold Construction on a hot evidence issue important to bad-faith coverage litigation.  In Seabold the company and its liability insurer are locked in a dispute over Liberty's handling of Seabold's defense in a construction-defect matter; Seabold contends that Liberty acted in bad faith in connection with settlement of the dispute.  During the critical time period -- while settlement negotiations were going on in the underlying case -- Liberty was acting through coverage counsel, which is commonplace in such situations.  Once the coverage litigation got underway, however, Seabold demanded to see the communications with and work done by the insurer's "coverage counsel" on the theory that at least part of the time the attorney was acting as a claims adjuster.  Under the reasoning of Cedell v. Farmers, a Washington case (and its progeny, discussed in this blog post from 2013), Seabold argued -- successfully -- that there was no absolute attorney-client privilege when "coverage counsel" is performing some of the business functions of a liability carrier.  The trial court ordered Liberty Mutual to produce counsel's communications (initially directly to Seabold, amended to production for review by the court), and Liberty Mutual sought a writ of mandamus -- essentially, appellate review in the middle of a case -- to block enforcement of the trial court's order.

The issue that the court has identified for resolution is whether attorney-client privilege applies despite counsel's involvement in "investigating and adjusting" the claim.  This is the issue that Cedell and other courts outside of Oregon have decided in favor of policyholders, and one would think that this court would go the same way.  However, in the Crimson Trace discovery dispute (which did not involve insurance) the court proved itself very protective of the attorney-client privilege in an institutional context, so "all bets are off," as they say.

The second case accepted for review (back on March 31) is the 2014 Fountaincourt Homeowners Ass'n v. Fountaincourt Development decision from the Court of Appeals.  In that decision the Court of Appeals confirmed that a claimant who obtains a judgment against an insured after trial may pursue that insured's insurance assets in a garnishment proceeding as a judgment creditor, and that during resolution of the garnishment the insurer has the burden of proving that the judgment was not covered where there is prima facie evidence that at least some of the jury's award was for covered damages.  That decision was very beneficial for claimants concerned about being able to collect on a judgment.

The Supreme Court's statement of the issues on review is rather breathtaking, and will ensure that the case is closely watched.  Rather than try to summarize, set out below are the issues on review from the court's statement:

(1) If a general verdict is returned against an insured entity in a mixed coverage case (i.e., one involving some damage that is payable by an insurer and some damage that is not), and the insurer defended under a reservation of rights, can the insured establish coverage for the awarded damages based on the general verdict? (2) Does defective work by an insured contractor constitute "property damage" if that term is defined as "[p]hysical injury to tangible property"? (3) Can an insured establish a prima facie case for insurance coverage with evidence showing only the possibility that a judgment is for damages within the insuring agreement of a liability policy? (4) If a liability insurer's policy is garnished by a judgment creditor and a disputed question of fact must be resolved to determine if the insurer is obligated to pay the judgment, is the insurer entitled to a jury trial in the garnishment proceeding?

What is surprising here is the Court's indication that it will take up some questions that many had thought were largely settled and were not the most controversial of the Court of Appeals' decisions.  One can hope that the Court's indication that it will review those questions is only intended to settle any doubt.  However because so much is at stake if the Court has decided to revisit those issues, this case promises to attract a lot of attention and amicus participants, and its resolution could shape (or re-shape) Oregon coverage law for a long time.

Did the Ore Sup Ct Abolish Common Law Indemnity for Defense Costs?

"Frequent-fliers" in the world of construction-defect litigation know that defense costs are often the biggest exposure, particularly for subcontractors.  That is why securing a paid-for defense from an insurance carrier is such a hot topic on this blog (and elsewhere).  And whether there is insurance to cover defense costs or not, defendants in complex disputes (including insurers) often threaten to sue other co-defendants to recover part of their defense costs, which can drive settlement discussions.  So any development in the law relating to defense cost recovery has an impact on policyholders - and that's why I'm writing about this new case, which on its face has nothing to do with insurance.

On March 19, 2015 the Oregon Supreme Court issued a somewhat surprising decision in Eclectic Investment v. Patterson & Jackson County et al., in which the court appears to have changed some fundamental assumptions about whether one defendant can recover defense costs from another defendant.  In Eclectic a landowner sued a contractor that had done excavating work for him and the county that inspected and permitted the excavation, after the excavated hillside eroded and damaged commercial buildings on owner's property.  A jury found that the landowner was more than 50% at fault, meaning that under Oregon's comparative fault law neither the county nor the contractor had to pay any damages (both the county and the contractor were found to be slightly at fault).  The county had asserted a common-law indemnity claim against the contractor, and after the trial pursued that claim to recover its defense costs.

Common-law indemnity is an equitable theory used when there is no contractual relationship between the parties or the contract does not contain an indemnity provision.  Under one formulation of the legal standard for the claim, Defendant A will owe Defendant B indemnity if Defendant A's negligence was "active" or "primary" while Defendant B's negligence was "passive" or "secondary."  Another way of phrasing the test is whether in fairness, Defendant A "should" pay for Defendant B's costs in the suit.

The issue before the Oregon Supreme Court in Eclectic Investment was how to determine if the county was entitled to indemnity, since neither the county nor the contractor were liable for damages, and each was found to have played a minor role in the incident.  The court recounted the rather vague legal tests that Oregon courts had developed over the years to determine whether in equity one party owes another indemnity (see above).  The court observed, however, that Oregon law changed after common-law indemnity was adopted, replacing the older "joint liability" regime with the current comparative-fault regime in which each defendant is assessed only its percentage share of any damages by the jury using a questionnaire.  Therefore, according to the court, the rationale for common-law indemnity has disappeared, because under the new scheme one party will never be made to pay damages that were in fact attributable to the "active" fault of another party.

The problem, of course, is that the defense costs incurred by the defendants are not part of the jury's consideration.  (In reality, those costs can only be determined once the litigation is done.)  But the court made it clear, in a final footnote, that where the comparative fault rules apply, common-law indemnity cannot be used as the theory on which to recover even defense costs.  The court stated that it would countenance recovery of defense costs on some other theory, citing cases from other states that allowed such claims under a quasi-contract theory - but that such claims could only lie where the indemnitee incurred defense costs only because of the indemnitor's negligence.  Applying that concept to the facts of the case, the court stated that because plaintiff had sued the county and the contractor, it was clear that the county's involvement in the litigation was not solely because of the contractor's negligence, so the county would have been out of luck in recovering defense costs under an alternative theory.

The court's decision will change some of the leverage points in multi-defendant litigation where not all players have contractual indemnity claims.  It also emphasizes the importance of having Oregon courts enforce insurance contracts providing a paid-for defense.   If defendants cannot rely on common-law indemnity to recover defense costs when they are dragged into lawsuits in which they play a minor part, it is critical that insurers understand and heed their contractual obligation to cover those defense costs.

Ore. Appeals Court Important Holding on Construction Indemnity Agreements

Just as the ball began to fall in New York to herald the New Year Oregon's Court of Appeals issued an important ruling on contractual indemnity agreements in construction contracts.  The decision isn't directly on insurance coverage, but is important because of the overlap between additional insured issues, contractual indemnity, and Oregon's "anti-indemnity" statute (ORS 30.140).  The progress of the case, Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Andersen Construction, has been closely watched because the trial court issued a written decision, one of the few on this subject.

Here is a bit of background: a  new addition to the church suffered from many problems, involving the work of several subcontractors (including one called "B&B"), as well as the general contractor, Andersen.  Andersen's form subcontract included a broad indemnity provision requiring all subcontractors to defend Andersen if suit was brought on the project.  Therefore, Andersen tendered the suit to its subcontractors.  B&B refused the tender.  Andersen settled with the owner, and assigned to the owner its claims against B&B for breach of the duty to defend.  The owner moved for summary judgment on the duty to defend, and prevailed.  However, the trial court awarded the church (as Andersen's assignee) no damages, because the church could not prove how much time Andersen's lawyers had spent dealing with the claims involving B&B's alleged negligence, as opposed to its own negligence or the negligence of other subcontractors.  The trial court relied on Oregon's anti-indemnity statute (ORS 30.140) -- which only applies to construction contracts -- as the basis for putting the burden on the church /Andersen to allocate the defense costs.  (I analyzed the trial court's ruling in more detail in an article for the June 2013 newsletter of the OSB Construction Law Section, available here,)

The church appealed, arguing that the statute did not require that kind of allocation for various reasons, including that the standard applied in the insurance "duty to defend" context should apply to the duty to defend in a contractual indemnity provision.  As a matter of insurance law, an insurer has a duty to defend all claims -- even claims that are not potentially covered -- if any one claim in a suit triggers the duty to defend.  The insurer may not allocate its defense costs based on covered versus uncovered claims.  The Court of Appeals rejected that argument as to ORS 30.140 (and all of the church's other arguments) based on the court's analysis of the legislative history.  However, the Court of Appeals did not reach many of the practical issues presented by the case, finding them moot because of the church's failure to even try to meet the burden of proof articulated by the trial court.  (See the Construction Law Section newsletter article mentioned above for an explanation of those issues).  The case was sent back to the trial court for additional proceedings including (potentially) an award to B&B of its attorney fees, since the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court as to who was the prevailing party.

The general take away is this: if a general contractor (or the GC's insurer) wants to recover its defense costs from a subcontractor that refuses to pick up the defense, it must require its law firm to write time descriptions in such a way that a court can later determine how much time was spent on the negligence of each subcontractor.  Of interest to readers of this blog, that requirement will likely lead to all kinds of issues between GC's and their insurers about management of the defense, and also may complicate additional insured claims on subcontractors, involving coverage counsel for the subcontractors.  Happy New Year!

Ore. Fed. Ct. Considers Meaning of "Occurrence" for Developer Liability

In a decision handed down earlier this week in litigation between a primary-layer carrier and an umbrella carrier an Oregon federal court held that when a plaintiff brings a claim against a developer for negligence, the term "occurrence" in the developer's policies means the negligent development, globally: in other words, the developer's negligent work is one occurrence, despite the fact that the property damage may take multiple forms.

The case involves a high-rise condominium in Portland's South Waterfront district.  The condo association sued the developer (not the general contractor) over water damage arising from construction deficiencies that led to water problems in the garage, and elsewhere.  The primary layer policy (from American Contractors Insurance Group or "ACIG") had a $2 million per occurrence limit and a $4 million products-completed-operations aggregate limit.  AIG, the umbrella carrier, insured over the same limits (called the "retained limit").  However, the Court noted that the AIG policy had its own definition of "occurrence" and provided coverage independently of the primary layer policy subject only to the retained limit - it was true "umbrella" coverage, not excess coverage.

Both the primary layer carrier and AIG contributed to a settlement.  But AIG contended that the primary layer carrier should have been required to pay its $4 million aggregate before its policy was triggered, and so sued to gets its contribution to the settlement back.

The Court disagreed.  The Court rejected AIG's effort to rely on case law interpretations of "occurrence" and instead examined the AIG policy's definition of "occurrence" on its own terms.  The AIG  provision included some standard language about an occurrence including multiple exposures to the same "conditions."  The Court found that the "condition" implicated by the condo association's allegations, read strictly, was the negligent development overall of the project - not particular construction practices by the general contractor.  The Court found it significant, in this regard, that the condo association had not brought the general contractor into the suit.  The Court determined that there was therefore only one "occurrence" for purposes of the AIG policy's retained limit condition.

Overall, this decision re-emphasizes for insurance professionals the importance of examining policy language on its own, without relying on court decisions that may or may not be applicable, and also carefully examining what is actually alleged in the underlying litigation rather than assuming things based on what is usually alleged in construction defect litigation.

Ninth Circuit Certifies Notice-Prejudice Question to Montana Supremes

One of the perennial issues in insurance coverage is what happens if a policyholder provides notice to its insurance company late - in the case of liability coverage, that usually means after the underlying case has been litigated for a long time, and sometimes gone to verdict, or been settled.  Most states have adopted the "notice-prejudice" rule for those situations.  The basic concept is this: if the insurance company wants to get completely off the hook for any obligation to pay defense costs or indemnity, based on language in the policy obligating the policyholder to provide notice "as soon as practicable" or similar, the insurance company has to show that it suffered in some way by the late notice, e.g. that it could have negotiated a better deal, litigated the case differently, paid less for defense costs.

Montana's lead case on this subject, according to the Ninth Circuit, contains language that both suggests that notice-prejudice is the standard and also that timely notice is a condition precedent to coverage, meaning that late notice bars coverage with no showing of prejudice needed.  The case, Atlantic Casualty v. Greytak, appears to have been  a fairly typical construction defect suit at the outset, but with a twist: the insurance company was not notified until almost a year after the defect claims were made and after the parties had entered into a covenant-judgment type lawsuit.  Those are not very sympathetic facts on which to argue for the notice-prejudice rule.  It will be interesting to see if Montana's Supreme Court takes the case.

"Pay and Chase" Jeopardized by Court of Appeals

Policyholders representing general contractors and developers frequently urge defending carriers to "pay and chase" - in other words, settle with the owner ("pay") and then subrogate against the subcontractors or design professionals whose work caused the alleged damage ("chase") to get reimbursed for the settlement with the owners.  Many carriers are increasingly leery of this approach, and unfortunately a new decision from the Court of Appeals is likely to further dampen their enthusiasm.  In Montara Owners Ass'n v. LaNoue Development, the developer's carrier (Zurich) agreed to pay and chase, paying $4 million to resolve the developer's liability.  Zurich settled with almost all subcontractors, but proceeded to trial against one, Advanced Construction ("Advanced") (referred to in the decision as Sharabarin, the name of the "dba" owner).

At trial Advanced succeeded on a directed verdict motion to reduce the total amount that LaNoue could seek in damages by knocking out two chunks from Zurich's subrogation right: 1) amounts that Zurich had been reimbursed by settling subcontractors; 2) an amount that Zurich had paid in settlement out of a policy that pre-dated Advanced's construction work on the project.  Advanced's argument as to #1 was essentially that Zurich could not get a double recovery; its argument on #2 was that because it could not have caused property damage during that early Zurich policy period, there was no subrogation right for that period.  LaNoue (Zurich) argued that subrogation merely puts the carrier in the insured's shoes, and does not impose any additional burdens of proof on a subrogating carrier.

The Court of Appeals reversed the directed verdict on #1, holding that property damage caused by other subcontractors, for which those subcontractors paid to settle, had nothing to do with the claims against Advanced, and since there was no overlap, the trial court should not have pretended that there was a concern about "double recovery."  But the Court of Appeals upheld the #2 reduction, for the policy period prior to Advanced's work, "because Sharabarin could not have been responsible for covered losses during that timeframe."

As all insurance professionals know, carrier allocations of indemnity payments that are made from multiple policies are idiosyncratic and usually have nothing to do with the amount of property damage that actually occurred in any particular policy period.  That issue often comes up in litigation over prior exhaustion of policies: a carrier will claim that a policy was exhausted in prior litigation and that therefore no defense was owed, but policyholder counsel can often establish that the allocation of losses to the policy in question was arbitrary, that the insured was not consulted, and that the policy was in fact no exhausted at all.  Indeed it appears that in this case Zurich put in evidence that the amount that it allocated to the earliest, pre-Advanced policy was arbitrary.  It is unclear why the Court of Appeals ignored this evidence.  If Zurich appeals, policyholders may want to weigh in on the impact of the decision on them.

Oregon Supreme Court Will Review Landmark Case on Stipulated Judgments

The Oregon Supreme Court has accepted review in the landmark Brownstone Homes Condo Ass'n v. Brownstone Forest Heights LLC case, on the issue of stipulated judgments.  To simplify greatly, the case involves a developer (the LLC) that was sued along with one of its subcontractors, A&T Siding, by the condo association.  A&T was denied coverage by its carrier, and so entered into a stipulated covenant judgment with the association in which it assigned its coverage claim against its carrier, Capitol.  The condo association then attempted to enforce the judgment as a garnishee on Capitol.  The trial court denied recourse, holding that: 1) under the "Stubblefield" rule Capitol had no liability because the covenant did not leave any potential unsatisfied liability; and 2) ORS 31.825 (which permits assignments) did not control because that statute requires that the assignment take place after judgment was entered, and here the assignment and judgment happened at the same time.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a garnishment proceeding by an injured claimant is subject to Stubblefield because of the Reuter decision, which limited the rights of a garnishee to those held by the primary defendant.  The court also agreed that ORS 31.825 requires a specific sequence in a stipulated judgment with assignment and that unless the proper sequence is followed, the statute has no application.  Finally, the court held that a good-faith-cooperation requirement in the agreement did not make the agreement Stubblefield-compliant with regard to the insured's continued exposure to liability.

The Oregon Supreme Court identified the following issues for appeal (I'm paraphrasing): 1) does Reuter really mean that Stubblefield applies to garnishment proceedings?; 2) does ORS 31.825 require that judgment-covenant proceed in a specific order; and 3) most tantalizingly, if the Court of Appeals were right on #1 and #2, should Stubblefield be abrogated?  The alignment of the parties and interests of the counsel pursuing the appeal are somewhat odd, so amicus participation seems likely.  This will be one to watch in the fall as briefing comes in.

Oregon In What Is Now Majority Across the County on Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

Really nice post the other day by our friends at DC-based Dickstein Shapiro on the recent change in tide on something that we in Oregon tend to take for granted: that construction defects that have resulted in property damage may be covered under the standard CGL policy.  Oregon courts have long employed a slightly different interpretation of the term "occurrence" in the standard coverage grant, which is one reason that Oregon has been in what is now the majority on this issue from the beginning of the construction defect boom.