1700 Lincoln Ltd. v. Denver Marble and Tile Co., Inc., 85CA1442
| Decision Date | 30 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA1442,85CA1442 |
| Citation | 741 P.2d 1270 |
| Parties | 1700 LINCOLN LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DENVER MARBLE AND TILE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Wood, Ris & Hames, P.C., Stephen E. Connor, Jeffrey Clay Ruebel, Gregory S. Russi, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Douglas I. McQuiston, John E. Taylor, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
The determinative issue in this appeal is whether a builders' risk insurer of an owner-builder can successfully subrogate against a negligent co-insured subcontractor for damage incurred during construction of the owner's building. We hold that it may not and, therefore, affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing such a suit.
The plaintiff, 1700 Lincoln Limited, (owner) contracted with J.A. Jones Construction Company (Jones) to build an office building. Continental Marble and Granite Company was awarded a subcontract to install granite on the side of the building, and Continental contracted some of that work to defendant, Denver Marble & Tile Company, Inc. The construction contract between the owner and Jones required the latter to obtain a comprehensive general liability policy and to require each subcontractor to obtain such coverage. Denver Marble obtained such a policy, and the owner was named as an additional insured on that policy. The owner had procured a builders' risk policy.
High winds caused a scaffold used by Denver Marble to break loose, resulting in extensive damage to the building. The owner submitted a claim to its builders' risk insurer, Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Co. Northbrook paid the claim, less the deductible, and then filed a subrogation action against Denver Marble in the name of the owner, claiming that the accident was caused by the negligence of Denver Marble employees. In addition to paying the owner's claim, Northbrook also paid as a first party claim Denver Marble's losses, but does not seek to subrogate that amount.
The parties stipulated that Northbrook intended to provide coverage for Denver Marble under the owner's builders' risk policy by an endorsement to the policy which added the general contractor as an insured in its capacity "as General Contractor and as Agent for Its Subcontractors and the Subcontractors as their interests may appear."
Northbrook asserts that the intent of the parties was that the builders' risk policy of the owner would provide coverage in excess of that provided by the comprehensive general liability policy which each subcontractor was required under the contract to maintain. Evidence of this intent in the record consists of the requirement in the general construction contract that subcontractors obtain comprehensive general liability coverage and an "other insurance" clause in the builders' risk policy. However, an endorsement to the liability policy states that its coverage shall be excess over any property insurance available to the insured, such as builders' risk coverage.
Northbrook argues further that Denver Marble's comprehensive general liability policy covered the losses which occurred at the construction site, that its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Divide Ins. Co. v. Western Skies Management, Inc., No. 03CA0334
...1292, 1298-99 (La.1995)). But an insurer generally has no right of subrogation against its own insured. 1700 Lincoln Ltd. v. Denver Marble & Tile Co., 741 P.2d 1270, 1271 (Colo.App.1987). Under the antisubrogation rule, an insurer may not seek recovery against its insured on a claim arising......
-
Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source System, Inc.
...Employees Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sellen Construction Co., 48 Wash.App. 792, 740 P.2d 913 (1987);c.f. 1700 Lincoln Limited v. Denver Marble & Tile Co., 741 P.2d 1270 (Colo.App. 1987)(insurer may not subrogate against its insured). In the event of fire loss to the work, the parties agreed to......
-
Boulder Plaza v. Summit Flooring
...has no right of subrogation against its own insured. Continental Divide Ins. Co., 107 P.3d at 1148; 1700 Lincoln Ltd. v. Denver Marble & Tile Co., 741 P.2d 1270, 1271 (Colo. App.1987). This principle, commonly known as the antisubrogation rule, prohibits an insurer from seeking recovery aga......
-
Subrogation: Principles and Practice Pointers
...Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Georgia Sprinkler Co., Inc., 713 F.2d 1500 (11th Cir.1983). 9. 1700 Lincoln Ltd. v. Denver Marble & Tile Co., Inc., 741 P.2d 1270 (Colo.App. 1987). 10. Continental Cas. Co. v. Empire Cas. Co., 713 P.2d 384 (Colo.App. 1985). 11. E.g., Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. ......
-
The Construction Defect Action Reform Act of 2003
...of claim or subrogation provisions in both the policy and construction contract. Cf. 1700 Lincoln, Ltd. v. Denver Marble & Tile Co., 741 P.2d 1270 (Colo.App. 1987) policy prohibits builder's risk insurer from subrogating against own insured); Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source Sys., 9......