Bond Bros., Inc. v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 18 December 1984
• Citation: 471 N.E.2d 1332,393 Mass. 546
• Parties: BOND BROS., INC. v. Odell ROBINSON et al. 1 ; The American Insurance Company, third-party defendant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 1332

471 N.E.2d 1332

393 Mass. 546

BOND BROS., INC. v. Odell ROBINSON et al. ¹; The American

Insurance Company, third-party defendant.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,

Middlesex.

Argued March 6, 1984.

Decided Dec. 18, 1984.

Kieran B. Meagher, Boston, for D & R Steel Erectors, Inc., et al.

Edward W. Waystack, Boston, for American Ins. Co.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.

WILKINS, Justice.

The plaintiff general contractor obtained a judgment against the defendant subcontractor based on claims of breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence in the erection of reinforcing steel in a wall of a power substation constructed under a contract with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). This appeal concerns the question whether a comprehensive general liability insurance policy issued to the subcontractor by the third-party defendant, The American Insurance Company (American), provides indemnity for the subcontractor's liability to the plaintiff general contractor.

This third-party action between the subcontractor and its insurer American was submitted to a District Court judge on a statement of agreed facts. Without any explanation for his decision, the judge concluded that the policy did not provide coverage. On report to it, the Appellate Division of the District Courts agreed with the trial judge's conclusion and dismissed the report. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division dismissing the report.

In August, 1978, the subcontractor contracted with the general contractor to install reinforcing steel and welded wire mesh (rebar work) in connection with concrete construction for the power station. The contract required the subcontractor to furnish evidence that it had comprehensive general liability insurance coverage for the work to be performed. After the subcontractor advised the general contractor that the rebar work had been completed for the north wall, the general contractor poured concrete into the form. In fact, a portion of the rebar work had not been performed and, as the MBTA discovered, the wall did not meet design criteria, was structurally unstable, and required remedial work. The general contractor advised the subcontractor that it would hold the subcontractor liable for the cost of the remedial work. The subcontractor notified American of the claim. The general contractor did the work and advised the subcontractor of the cost. American denied coverage of the loss and declined to defend the general contractor's claim.

As we have said, the general contractor obtained judgment against the subcontractor, and American was successful in its defense of the subcontractor's third-party action against it. This appeal involves only the question whether American's comprehensive general liability insurance policy covers the subcontractor's loss.

We need not consider all the arguments made by American because we conclude, as did the Appellate Division of the District Courts, that any coverage of the loss is excluded by an explicit exclusion in the policy. We reach this conclusion because we see no ambiguity in the policy or uncertainty in the circumstances which would justify denying effect to the explicit exclusion. Exclusion (y)(2)(d)(iii) eliminates coverage for property damage to "that particular part of any property, not on premises owned by or rented to the insured ..., the restoration, repair or replacement of which has been made or is necessary by reason of faulty workmanship thereon by or on behalf of the insured." This exclusion, standing alone, denies coverage for faulty workmanship of the character involved in the subcontractor's rebar work. The subcontractor does not argue otherwise to us.

The subcontractor claims that another exclusion in the policy, exclusion (a), creates such an ambiguity concerning coverage that, under principles of strict construction of exclusions against insurers, we should conclude that coverage was available. See Vappi & Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 348 Mass. 427, 431, 204 N.E.2d 273 (1965). Cf. Beacon Textiles Corp. v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 355 Mass. 643, 645, 246 N.E.2d 671 (1969). Exclusion (a) has been included in substantially the same form in many comprehensive liability insurance policies issued in this country in recent years. It provides that coverage does not apply "to liability assumed by the insured under any contract or agreement except an incidental contract; but this exclusion does not apply to a warranty of fitness or quality of the named insured's products or a warranty that work performed by or on behalf of the named insured will be done in a workmanlike manner " (emphasis supplied).

The subcontractor argues that the italicized language, stating an exception to the exclusion, provides coverage for breach of a warranty (even as part of a contractual arrangement) that work will be done in a workmanlike manner. At least, the contractor argues, the combination of exclusion (y)(2)(d)(iii) and the exception in exclusion (a) creates an apparent ambiguity that must be construed in its favor. We reject this view in accord with the distinct weight of authority and better reasoned opinions elsewhere in the country dealing with similar claims.

No insured in these circumstances can reasonably conclude that the exception to exclusion (a) makes irrelevant another exclusion in the policy that explicitly denies coverage. Of course, as American notes in its brief, when read alone and quickly, exclusion (a) provides some hope. Reading exclusion (a), an insured would recognize that he was still in the running as to losses resulting from certain warranties. However, there are other exclusions that cannot reasonably be ignored. We flatly reject the concept that, because exclusion (a) excludes certain possible coverage and then provides for an exception, that exception creates an ambiguity, or an objectively reasonable expectation of coverage, when it is confronted with another explicit exclusion.

Because, as we have said, exclusion (a) has been common to many comprehensive general liability insurance policies, the issue of exclusion (a)'s interrelationship with other policy exclusions has arisen numerous times elsewhere. ² There is a split of authority on the treatment of exclusion (a) but the weight of authority, and almost all recent authority, denies coverage in similar cases. Opinions denying coverage are better reasoned and give a balanced treatment to the exclusion. Those opinions in chronological order are: Haugan v. Home Indem. Co., 86 S.D. 406, 413, 197 N.W.2d 18 (1972) ("Exclusion [a] does not extend or grant coverage.... The exception remains subject to and limited by all other related exclusions contained in the policy"); Biebel Bros. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 522 F.2d 1207, 1212 (8th Cir.1975) (The exception in exclusion [a] "is limited to exclusion [a] and has no application whatsoever to exclusions [l] or [m] or the others here under scrutiny"); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Coss, 80 Cal.App.3d 888, 896, 145 Cal.Rptr. 836 (1978) ("[E]xclusion [a] is not in conflict with the other exclusions; therefore, we do not find the ambiguity urged by [the insured]"); Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233, 247, 405 A.2d 788 (1979) (6-1 decision) ("In this case [the insured's] interpretation of the policy would result in coverage for repair and replacement of its own faulty workmanship. This interpretation relies on the supposition that the exception to exclusion '[a]' ... grants coverage for claims based on the warranty described. Not so. The contention runs directly counter to the basic principle that exclusion clauses subtract from coverage rather than grant it" [emphasis in original] ); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Colver, 600 P.2d 1, 3-4 (Alaska 1979) ("In this case, we are unable to agree that the relevant exclusion clauses in the insurance contracts, when taken together, could be reasonably interpreted by a lay-person as providing coverage for damages to the insured's work product.... While we recognize that Exclusion [a] may have been somewhat confusing to the insured, the subsequent exclusions gave him full notice that property damage to his work or work product, arising out of his work or work product, would not be covered by the policy"); Vernon Williams & Son Constr., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 591 S.W.2d 760, 763-765 (Tenn.1979) (quoting extensively from the New Jersey opinion in Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., supra ); LaMarche v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So.2d 325, 326-327 (Fla.1980) (relying on the Weedo case and disapproving Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. United Filigree Corp., 298 So.2d 455 [Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974] ); Indiana Ins. Co. v. DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d 1275, 1278-1279 (Ind.1980) (same); Stillwater Condominium Ass'n v. American Home Assurance Co., 508 F.Supp. 1075, 1079 (D.Mont.1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 848 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038, 103 S.Ct. 1429, 75 L.Ed.2d 789 (1983) ("[T]he coverage supposedly 'granted' by the exception to exclusion [a] has already been granted in the insuring provision. Having been granted in the insuring provision, that coverage is subject to the limitation of each and every exclusion"); Zandri Constr. Co. v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 81 A.D.2d 106, 109 (N.Y.App.Div.), aff'd, 54 N.Y.2d 999, 446 N.Y.S.2d 45, 430 N.E.2d 922 (1981) (relying on the reasoning of the Weedo opinion); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wenger, 222 Va. 263, 267, 278 S.E.2d 874 (1981) (relying on the Haugan and Weedo opinions); Helfeldt v. Robinson, 290 S.E.2d 896, 901 (W.Va.1981) (relying on Indiana Ins. Co. v. DeZutti, supra ); Qualls v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 123 Ill.App.3d 831, 834, 78 Ill.Dec. 934, 462 N.E.2d 1288 (1984) (relying on the Weedo opinion); Harrison Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Group, 37 Wash.App. 621, 681 P.2d 875 (1984) (same); Sturla, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 684 P.2d...