20.07.2013 Views

Is My Drywall Chinese? - HB Litigation Conferences

Is My Drywall Chinese? - HB Litigation Conferences

Is My Drywall Chinese? - HB Litigation Conferences

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

that claims based on <strong>Chinese</strong> drywall may be asserted against them. Such notice is required<br />

by the CGL policy not just when the contractor is actually sued but also when the contractor<br />

learns of circumstances that are reasonably likely to result in such a suit. A contractor who<br />

fails to give such notice runs the risk that its insurer will deny coverage on the grounds of late<br />

notice (although many states prohibit an insurer from denying coverage on such grounds<br />

unless the late notice has resulted in material prejudice to the insurer).<br />

In addition, a contractor who desires to respond to homeowner complaints regarding<br />

<strong>Chinese</strong> drywall should be mindful that its CGL policy imposes obligations on the contractor<br />

who intends to seek insurance coverage for the cost of repairs. A contractor who agrees with<br />

a homeowner to remediate defective <strong>Chinese</strong> drywall before a judgment is entered against<br />

the contractor, or before a suit is even filed against the contractor, runs two risks. The first<br />

relates to the CGL policy’s insuring agreement, which requires the insurer to pay “those<br />

sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages.” Some insurers have<br />

argued that a contractor who settles with a homeowner before a judgment is entered against<br />

the contractor or before a lawsuit is filed against the contractor is not “legally obligated” to<br />

pay damages. Most courts have rejected this argument. See, e.g., Wanzek Const., Inc. v.<br />

Employers Ins. of Wausau, 667 N.W.2d 473, 477 (Minn. 2003) (lawsuit not required to be<br />

filed against contractor). A few courts, however, have held that a lawsuit must be filed<br />

against the insured before the insured’s settlement with the claimant can satisfy the “legally<br />

obligated to pay as damages” requirement. See, e.g., San Diego Housing Commission v.<br />

Industrial Indemnity Co., 68 Cal. App. 4th 526, 543 (1998) (lawsuit required); Zurich Ins.<br />

Co. v. Carus Corp., 689 N.E.2d 130, 134 (Ill. App. 1997) (lawsuit required). But see Central<br />

Illinois Light Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 795 N.E.2d 412, 422-23, 425, 429-30 (Ill. App. 2003)<br />

(lawsuit not required). In addition, at least one court has gone so far as to conclude that the<br />

- 19 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!