§ 1.4.7 Conclusion
The construction law lawyer should have a working knowledge of the basic principles and application of contractual indemnification. To that end, the lawyer must be familiar with the insurance products available in the construction industry and the prerequisites for coverage, the most troublesome of which are “property damage” and “occurrence.”
| PRACTICE POINTER | The allegations contained in a complaint arising from a dispute concerning construction may well trigger coverage under a contractor’s CGL policy or under the project’s builder’s risk policy. A construction law lawyer, when presented with a complaint, should carefully consider whether the allegations could possibly evoke coverage. If such allegations are found, the complaint should immediately be tendered to the insured’s insurance broker with the invitation that the insurer defend and indemnify. It would be most embarrassing for a construction law lawyer, who for many months had undertaken the defense of his or her client at considerable expense to the client, later to realize that certain allegations in the complaint evoked insurance coverage, such that the entire action would have been defended at the expense of the client’s insurer. |
Action Auto Stores, Inc. v. United Capitol Ins. Co., 845 F. Supp. 417 (W.D. Mich. 1993) 1.4-17
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Monsanto Co., 487 So. 2d 398 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)............ 1.4-14
Ariz. Prop. & Cas. Guar. Fund v. Helme, 153 Ariz. 129, 735 P.2d 451 (1987)................ 1.4-10, 11
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Home Pride Cos., Inc., 684 N.W.2d 571 (Neb. 2004).................. 1.4-17
Bar-Son Bldg. Corp. v. Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co., 323 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1982) 1.4-15
Benevides v. Ariz. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 184 Ariz. 610, 911 P.2d 616 (Ct. App.1995) 1.4-5
Bethke v. Assurance Co. of Am., 2002 WL 31655357, No...
