Baltimore Contract., Inc. v. Circle Floor Co. of Wash., Inc.
Decision Date | 09 October 1970 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 18765. |
Parties | BALTIMORE CONTRACTORS, INC., a body corporate, to its own use and to the use of H. J. Defriez and other similarly situated Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. CIRCLE FLOOR COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC., a body corporate. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Paul Walter and Tydings & Rosenberg, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
George T. Tyler and Ober, Grimes & Shriver, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.
In form, this is an action by Baltimore Contractors, Inc. (BC), the principal contractor on a construction job, against a subcontractor (Circle) for damages resulting from a fire caused by Circle. In substance, it is a controversy between Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Lloyd's), which had issued to BC a Builder's Risk Policy, insuring against all risks of physical loss or damage to the work in progress, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Liberty), which had issued to Circle a Comprehensive General Liability Policy.
Counsel for Circle and Liberty contend: (1) that Circle is an insured under the Lloyd's policy; (2) that Lloyd's may not assert a claim by way of subrogation against one of its insureds; (3) that the "other insurance" clause of the Lloyd's policy does not operate as an excess clause; and (4) even if plaintiff is entitled to recover, interest should not be awarded. Counsel for BC and Lloyd's dispute each of those contentions.
The case has been submitted to the Court without a jury on a stipulation and supplemental stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, and one affidavit. The parties have also agreed that the Court may draw proper inferences from the stipulated facts. Diversity jurisdiction exists.
BC, as general contractor, entered into a contract with the City of Baltimore (City or owner), under which BC undertook to construct and deliver to the City, in complete and acceptable condition in accordance with the plans and specifications, new buildings for Baltimore Polytechnic Institute and Western High School.
BC entered into two subcontracts with Circle, each dated November 26, 1965, under which Circle undertook to perform certain work, viz: "Provide all the required labor, materials, tools, equipment, scaffolding, facilities and service, necessary for and incidental to the performing of all Work called for in" specified divisions of the prime contract, including "Resilient Flooring" and related work, in strict conformity with the prime contract between BC and the City.
The prime contract contained customary provisions that BC would be responsible for any damage which its work and operations might cause to the work being constructed, that BC would be responsible for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors and would indemnify the City against all claims arising out of the operations of BC and its subcontractors, and that BC would carry specified amounts of Compensation, Liability and Property Damage Insurance. The prime contract also contained the following provision:
The subcontracts between BC and Circle included the following provisions:
In accordance with the requirements of the subcontracts, Circle provided BC with an appropriate certificate of insurance from Liberty, indicating that Liberty had issued to Circle a Workmen's Compensation Policy, a Comprehensive General Liability Policy and a Comprehensive Automobile Liability Policy, stating that the General Liability Policy covered "All Hazards, Including Contractual". That policy included a broad "Contractual Liability Insurance Endorsement", and covered both the negligence claim and the contractual claim which are asserted as basis of recovery against Circle herein.
Thereafter Circle began performance of its obligations under the subcontracts, which included the installation of vinyl tile to the floor of the premises under construction. In furtherance of its work, Circle requested and was assigned a room in one of the new buildings for use as a storage room. That room was under the exclusive control of the employees of Circle, which, on January 31, 1967, had stored twenty 5-gallon cans of "Solarite" mastic in the room. At about 8:30 a. m. on January 31, 1967, Circle's superintendent placed a gas-fired flame heater on the floor close to the cans of "Solarite" and ignited the heater, in order to heat the mastic and make it more pliable and easier to apply to the floor surface. The cans bore a label which contained the following warning in large print:
"CAUTION SOLARITE Flammable Mixture MC 1509 Mastic Do Not Use Near Wood Block Floors Fire or Flame Cold Solar Compounds Corp Linden, N. J."
Circle's superintendent also put a piece of plywood at the rear of the heater, which was facing the cans of mastic, to reflect the heat toward the cans. At about 2:30 p. m. on January 31, the mastic ignited, either from overheating or from a spark from the heater. Placing the lighted heater...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Georgia Sprinkler Co., Inc.
...F.Supp. 14 (N.D.Okla.1971); Paul Tishman Company, Inc., v. Carney and Del Guidice, Inc., supra; Baltimore Contractors, Inc., v. Circle Floor Company of Washington, 318 F.Supp. 106 (D.Md.1970). Notwithstanding the cogent analysis presented in these cases we are bound by Brennan's. Superficia......
-
Federal Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...648, 233 A.2d 797 (1967); Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hurst, 174 Md. 596, 604, 199 A. 822 (1938); Baltimore Contract., Inc. v. Circle Floor Co. of Wash., Inc., 318 F.Supp. 106, 110 (D.Md.1970). Furthermore, Direct Way fully understood its shippers to be covered, as evidenced by the representati......
-
MILCHEM, INCORPORATED v. MA Smith Well Service, Inc.
...Builders & Mfgrs. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Preferred Automobile Ins. Co., 118 F.2d 118 (6th Cir. 1941); Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Circle Floor Co. of Washington, Inc., 318 F.Supp. 106 (D. Md.1970); Greenbriar Shopping Center, Inc. v. Lorne Co., 310 F.Supp. 303 (N.D. Ga.1969), aff'd 424 F.2d 54......
-
Turner Const. Co. v. John B. Kelly Co.
...Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, 328 F.Supp. 14 (N.D.Okl.1971); Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Circle Floor Co. of Wash., Inc., 318 F.Supp. 106 (D.Md.1970); Employers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Behunin, 275 F.Supp. 399 (D.Colo.1967); Paul Tishman Co. v. Carney & Del......
-
Exercising subrogation rights against subcontractors isn't easy, but it's not impossible: careful attention to the issues presented by policy language, additional insured language and subrogation clauses is important.
...Plumbing v. Villa France Inc., 515 S.W.2d 32, 39 (Tex. Civ.App.--Dallas 1974). (9.) Baltimore Contractors Inc. v. Circle Floor Co., 318 F. Supp. 106 (D. Md. 1970) (subcontractor did not ask to be included as (10.) RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS [section] 302 (1981). (11.) The second Rest......