Colonial Properties Realty v. Lowder Const.
Decision Date | 25 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. A02A0157.,A02A0157. |
Citation | 567 S.E.2d 389,256 Ga. App. 106 |
Parties | COLONIAL PROPERTIES REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. LOWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Cozen & O'Connor, Michael A. McKenzie, David A. Cornelius, Atlanta, for appellant.
Finley & Buckley, Timothy J. Buckley III, Jonathan E. White, Seacrest, Karesh, Tate & Bicknese, Karsten Bicknese, Annarita M. Busbee, Atlanta, Daniel Bullard IV, for appellee.
Plaintiff Colonial Properties Realty Limited Partnership ("Colonial") appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendant Lowder Construction Company, Inc. ("Lowder") in this subrogation action. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
The record shows that in May 1996, Colonial hired Lowder to serve as the construction manager/contractor for an apartment complex in Macon. In June 1998, a year after the complex was completed, one of the buildings was extensively damaged by a fire inadvertently started by a resident. Colonial's insurer, Lexington Insurance Company, paid the loss, in return for which Colonial executed a loan receipt. Lexington then brought the instant subrogation action in Colonial's name against Lowder, asserting four counts: negligent supervision, negligence per se, gross negligence, and breach of contract.
Subparagraph 11.3.7, entitled "Waivers of Subrogation," states as follows:
The Owner and Contractor waive all rights against each other and against the Construction Manager ... for damages caused by fire or other perils to the extent covered by property insurance obtained pursuant to this Paragraph 11.3 or other property insurance applicable to the Work.... A waiver of subrogation shall be effective as to a person or entity even though that person or entity would otherwise have a duty of indemnification, contractual or otherwise, did not pay the insurance premium directly or indirectly, and whether or not the person or entity had an insurable interest in the property damaged.
In opposing Lowder's motion, Colonial contended primarily that provisions waiving subrogation rights for damages arising after the completion of a project violate public policy. The trial court rejected Colonial's argument and granted summary judgment to Lowder. To this ruling Colonial assigns six enumerations of error.
1. Colonial first asserts that Lowder acted in the capacity of "construction manager" and not "contractor," as those terms were defined in the agreement. Therefore, Colonial argues, Lowder is not entitled to the benefit of the waiver of subrogation clause. This argument is based on the fact that the parties utilized the "1992 Construction Manager-Adviser Edition" of the American Institute of Architects standard form agreement, and Lowder's name is inserted in the appropriate spaces for "Construction Manager" as opposed to "Contractor."
This argument is meritless for several reasons. First, Colonial's breach of contract claim is premised upon Lowder's role as contractor. Colonial averred in this count of the complaint that "Lowder served as contractor with duties separate and apart from those as construction manager." This constituted a binding admission in judicio. " Under OCGA § 24-3-30, admissions in judicio in a party's pleadings bind the party so that they cannot put up evidence over objection to contradict such admissions."2 Second, Subparagraph 11.3.7 expressly applies to the construction manager as well as the contractor. Finally, Colonial does not assert that any other entity served as contractor, and if Lowder did not, who did?
Colonial's argument that no consideration existed to support a waiver of subrogation in Lowder's favor in its role as contractor is not well founded in light of Colonial's admission that Lowder served in this capacity and was paid for its work.
2. Colonial next asserts that the waiver of subrogation clause is inapplicable because the loss occurred after the work was completed. In support of this argument, Colonial relies on Subparagraph 11.3.1, which states:
Unless otherwise provided, the Owner shall purchase and maintain ... property insurance in the amount of the initial Contract Sum as well as subsequent modifications thereto for the entire Work.... Such property insurance shall be maintained until final payment has been made ... or until no person or entity other than the Owner has an insurable interest in the property ..., whichever is earlier.
Based on this clause, Colonial argues that it was not required to maintain insurance after completion of the project and thus had not waived subrogation at the time the loss occurred. We disagree. 3 Bearing in mind these cardinal rules of contract construction, we must endeavor to harmonize all relevant provisions of the contract at issue.
The contract defines "the Work" as "the construction and services required by the Contract Documents, whether completed or partially completed, and includes all other labor, materials, equipment and services provided or to be provided by the Contractor to fulfill the Contractor's obligations." (Emphasis supplied.) As previously noted, Subparagraph 11.3.5 also provides for a waiver of subrogation rights after final payment.
We interpret Subparagraph 11.3.1 as requiring Colonial to purchase and maintain insurance covering the project during its construction. Subparagraph 11.3.5 permitted, but did not require, Colonial to obtain a separate policy covering the completed project after final payment was made to Lowder. If Colonial obtained such a policy, then pursuant to this clause and Subparagraph 11.3.7, Colonial waived all subrogation rights for damages attributable to fire or other perils covered by this separate insurance. It follows that Subparagraph 11.3.1 is not inconsistent with Subparagraph 11.3.7 and that the parties intended to provide for waiver of subrogation rights for losses occurring after the project was completed.
As neither Georgia appeals court has addressed the precise issue before us, we look to other jurisdictions for guidance. In Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source System,7 the Colorado Court of Appeals interpreted the same subrogation clauses as those at issue in the instant case. The case involved a contractor who installed a new roof on the town hall and a subcontractor who supplied an electric snow-melting system for the roof. After the roofing project was completed, the town hall was damaged by a fire allegedly caused by the snow-melting system, and the town sued the contractor and subcontractor. Summary judgment was granted to the defendants based on the waiver of subrogation clauses in the parties' contract, and the appeals court affirmed. The court held that under Subparagraph 11.3.7, the fact that a contractor had finished its work and had no remaining insurable interest in the property did not terminate the waiver of subrogation rights.
Because property insurance applicable to the work, other than that obtained pursuant to paragraph 11.3.1, may remain in effect after the final completion date, so too may a waiver of subrogation rights under paragraph 11.3.7 remain in effect. Thus, we conclude that the waiver of subrogation clause barred subrogation for insured losses to the work occurring after the final completion date and the date final payment was made.8
Town of Silverton is squarely on point, and we find its reasoning persuasive. Moreover, cases cited by Colonial are distinguishable. For instance, in Automobile Ins. Co. &c. v. United H.R.B. General Contractors,9 the contract contained a clause which specifically provided that the owner did not waive its claims against the contractor for faulty or defective work appearing after substantial completion.10 No such clause appears in the contract between Lowder and Colonial. The contract in Fairchild v. W.O. Taylor Commercial Refrigeration &c. Co.11 was a simple one-page printed form which contained, in very small print at the bottom of the page, a sentence stating, "Owner...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monitronics International, Inc. v. Veasley
...given that trial court's ultimate construction of contract was correct). 18.See Colonial Properties Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Lowder Const. Co., Inc., 256 Ga.App. 106, 111–112, 567 S.E.2d 389 (2002); Duncan v. Integon General Ins. Corp., 267 Ga. 646, 650, 482 S.E.2d 325 (1997) (“Georgia ha......
-
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Tyco Integrated Sec., LLC, Case No. 13-CIV-80371-BLOOM/Valle
...(S.D.N.Y. 2003) (subrogation waiver does not bar claim of gross negligence); Colonial Properties Realty Ltd. P'ship v. Lowder Const. Co., 567 S.E.2d 389, 394 (2002) ("First, [plaintiff] argues that the subrogation clause cannot exculpate [defendant] for acts of gross negligence. That is cor......
-
Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Woodall
...contract void as against public policy and should do so only in cases free from doubt. Colonial Properties Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Lowder Const. Co., Inc, 256 Ga.App. 106, 111, 567 S.E.2d 389 (2002). Georgia "courts [thus] will not lightly interfere with the freedom of parties to contrac......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. ADT, LLC
...subrogation rights by "agree [ing] to look solely to insurance to cover their losses." Colonial Properties Realty Ltd. P'ship v. Lowder Const. Co., 256 Ga.App. 106, 567 S.E.2d 389, 393 (2002) (quoting Glazer v. Crescent Wallcoverings, Inc., 215 Ga.App. 492, 451 S.E.2d 509, 511 (1994) ); see......
-
Georgia Law Needs Clarification: Does it Take Willful or Wanton Misconduct to Defeat a Contractual “exculpatory” Clause, or Will Gross Negligence Suffice?
...Erectors, Inc., 170 Ga. App. 706, 708, 318 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1984). [28] Colonial Props. Realty Ltd. P’ship v. Lowder Const. Co., Inc., 256 Ga. App. 106, 112, 567 S.E.2d 389, 394 (2002). The Court recently repeated this rule in another commercial case, but only in dicta. Monitronics Int’l, I......
-
Construction Law - Dennis J. Webb, Jr., Justin S. Scott, Henry L. Balkcom Iv, and Dana R. Grantham
...v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27, 30, 343 S.E.2d 680, 683 (1986)). 42. Id. at 492, 568 S.E.2d at 798. 43. Id. 44. Id. 45. Id. 46. 256 Ga. App. 106, 567 S.E.2d 389 (2002). 47. Id. at 109-10, 567 S.E.2d at 392. 48. Id. at 106, 567 S.E.2d at 390. 49. Id. at 107, 567 S.E.2d at 390 (quotin......