Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
Decision Date | 31 August 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 05-0832.,05-0832. |
Citation | 242 S.W.3d 1 |
Parties | LAMAR HOMES, INC., Petitioner, v. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondent. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Lee H. Shidlofsky, Visser Shidlofsky LLP, Austin, TX, for Appellant.
John Engvall Jr., J. Jonathan Hlavinka, Engvall & Hlavinka, LLP, Jennifer Bruch Hogan, Richard P. Hogan Jr. and Matthew E. Coveler, Hogan & Hogan, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Appellee.
E. Thomas Bishop, Bishop & Hummert, P.C., Dallas, Wade Caven Crosnoe, Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, L.L.P., Austin, Patrick J. Wielinski, Cokinos Bosien & Young, Arlington, Jennifer Anne Lloyd, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, Austin, Charles J. Pignuolo, Law Office of Charles J. Pignuolo, Houston, James Perry Dyer, Texas Ass'n of Builders, Austin, John C. Tollefson, Tollefson Bradley Ball & Mitchell, LLP, Micah Ethan Skidmore, Haynes and Boone, L.L.P., Dallas, Richard Detrick Villa, Hughes & Luce, L.L.P., Austin, Levon G. Hovnatanian, Martin Disiere Jefferson & Wisdom L.L.P., Kevin D. Jewell, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, white, Williams & Martin, Houston, Michael A. Ysasaga, Maxwell, Wagner & Ysasaga, P.C., Fort Worth, for Amicus Curiae.
This case comes to us on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit asking whether an insurer under a commercial general liability ("CGL") policy has a duty to defend its insured, a homebuilder, against a homebuyer's claims of defective construction. The Fifth Circuit has certified three questions for our consideration:
1. When a homebuyer sues his general contractor for construction defects and alleges only damage to or loss of use of the home itself, do such allegations allege an "accident" or "occurrence" sufficient to trigger the duty to defend or indemnify under a CGL policy?
2. When a homebuyer sues his general contractor for construction defects and alleges only damage to or loss of use of the home itself, do such allegations allege "property damage" sufficient to trigger the duty to defend or indemnify under a CGL policy?
3. If the answers to certified questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, does Article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code apply, to a CGL insurer's breach of the duty to defend?
428 F.3d 193, 200-01 (5th Cir.2005). We conclude that allegations of unintended construction defects may constitute an "accident" or "occurrence" under the CGL policy and that allegations of damage to or loss of use of the home itself may also constitute "property damage" sufficient to trigger the duty to defend under a CGL policy. Accordingly, as to the duty to defend, we answer the first two questions yes. We do not reach the duty to indemnify, however, as that duty is not triggered by allegations but rather by proof at trial. We further conclude that former article 21.55 (recodified as sections 542.051—.061 of the Texas Insurance Code) does apply to an insurer's breach of the duty to defend and accordingly answer the third question, yes.
Vincent and Janice DiMare purchased a new home from Lamar Homes, Inc. and several years later encountered problems that they attributed to defects in their foundation. The DiMares sued Lamar and its subcontractor complaining about these defects. Lamar forwarded the lawsuit to Mid—Continent Casualty Company seeking a defense and indemnification under a commercial general liability or. CGL insurance policy. Mid—Continent refused to defend, prompting Lamar to seek a declaration of its rights under the CGL policy. Lamar also sought recovery under article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code.
On cross motions, the federal district court granted summary judgment for Mid— Continent, concluding it had no duty to defend Lamar for construction errors that harmed only Lamar's own product. Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 335 F.Supp.2d 754 (W.D.Tex.2004). The court reasoned that the purpose of a CGL policy is "to protect the insured from liability resulting from property damage (or bodily injury) caused by the insured's product, but not for the replacement or repair of that product." Id. at 759. Noting disagreement among Texas courts about the application of the CGL policy under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit has asked us to resolve the conflict.
The first two certified questions focus on the meaning of the terms "occurrence" and "property damage" in the CGL policy. The CGL policy is a standard form developed by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO")1 and is used throughout the United States. See 2 JEFFREY W. STEMPEL, STEMPEL ON INSURANCE CONTRACTS § 14.01 (3d ed.2007). The meaning of these terms and their application to cases involving defective construction should therefore be the same in Texas as in the other states, but unfortunately there is no consensus on the policy's meaning under the circumstances posed here. Several courts have concluded that the CGL policy provides coverage for faulty workmanship that injures the work of the general contractor.2 Other courts have concluded that coverage is not provided under these circumstances.3 As the Fifth Circuit points out even within Texas, intermediate courts of appeals disagree "on the application of these clauses in a CGL policy when the insured contractor is sued by a building owner for damage arising from shoddy construction of the building." 428 F.3d at 196.
At present, we have similar issues pending in six separate petitions for review involving CGL policies. See Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2006 WL 1892669 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. pending) ( ); Summit Custom Homes, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 202 S.W.3d 823 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. pending); Lennar Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 200 S.W.3d 651 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. pending) (same); Grimes Constr., Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 188 S.W.3d 805 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. pending) ( ); Archon Inv., Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co. 174 S.W.3d 334 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. pending) ( ); Gehan Homes, Ltd. v. Employers Mut Cas. Co., 146 S.W.3d 833 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. pending) (same).
The CGL policy provides that the insurance carrier "will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of `bodily injury' or `property damage' to which this insurance applies" and will "defend the insured against any `suit' seeking those damages." The policy further provides that the "insurance applies to `bodily injury' and `property damage' only if: (1) the `bodily injury' or `property damage' is caused by an `occurrence' that takes place in the `coverage territory.'"4 Consequently, the carrier's duty to defend is triggered by a claim for "property damage" or "bodily injury" caused by an "occurrence."
The policy defines an "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." "Property damage" is defined as "[p]hysical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property."5
The first two questions ask whether defective construction or faulty workmanship that injures only a general contractor's own work (the home) constitute an "occurrence" or "property damage" under the CGL policy. Although certified as separate questions, the two are connected because both focus on the same property damage limitation, the home. Moreover, the CGL's insuring agreement ties the two concepts together by covering only those occurrences that cause property damage or bodily injury.
The insurance carrier maintains that, the CGL policy does not cover defective construction that injures only the work of the general contractor for a number of reasons. First, the carrier argues that a CGL policy's purpose is to protect the insured from tort liability, not claims of defective performance under a contract. Although the plaintiffs allege negligence, the carrier submits that their claim against its insured is actually in contract because the economic-loss rule dictates that all damages arising from defective work constitute economic damages for breach of contract rather than property damage. The carrier further contends that defective work cannot be an "occurrence" because it is not accidental. In this regard, the carrier submits that a general contractor should expect that faulty workmanship will result in damage to the project itself, and that if an injury is expected, it is not accidental. Finally, the carrier contends that extending CGL coverage under these circumstances transforms liability insurance into a performance bond.
The federal district court agreed with these arguments, concluding that an injury to the insured contractor's own work (the home) should not be considered an occurrence of property damage because the cost to correct faulty workmanship is an economic loss that a CGL policy should not cover.6 The district court further reasoned that defective construction could be an occurrence, but only when the defect caused bodily injury or damaged the property of a third party. Because the plaintiffs here did not allege that a third party's property had been damaged, the court concluded the duty to defend had not been triggered under the CGL policy.
We begin with the question whether defective construction or,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886
...the result would have been different had the deliberate act been performed correctly." Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 242 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. 2007). We have held that "[a]n accident is an event that is unintended from the perspective of the insured." (Internal quotation mark......
-
Barbara Techs. Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds
...... See Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co. , 242 S.W.3d 1, 28 ......
-
K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
......v. Continental Cas. Co., 935 N.E.2d 160, 162 (Ind.2010) (holding “it is the initial broad grant of coverage, not ... resulting from the faulty workmanship of a subcontractor are not excluded from coverage”); Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid–Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.2007) (holding that a general ......
-
In re Gen. Motors LLC
...... Calcagnie 257 F.Supp.3d 391 Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc., Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiff. Roseann Hinds, pro se. ...Ill. 2016) ; PXRE Reins urance Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. , 342 F.Supp.2d 752, 757 (N.D. Ill. 2004) ; see ... the failure of a party to perform under a contract." Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid–Continent Cas. Co. , 242 S.W.3d 1, 12 ......
-
'The Evolving Definition Of Occurrence'
...Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Moore & Associates, 216 S.W.3d 302, 307-09 (Tenn. 2007); Lamar Homes v. Mid-Continent Casualty, 242 S.W.3d 1, 16 (Tex. 2007); U.S. Fire Insurance v. J.S.U.B., 979 So.2d 871, 883-84 (Fla. 2007); and Lee Builders v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurace, 137 P.......
-
Insurance Coverage For Astroworld: Travis Scott's Intent Should Not Be A Factor For Insurance Coverage
...12 1A John Alan Appleman & Jean Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice ' 360 at 449 (1981). 13 Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co ., 242 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. 14 See, e.g., Centauri Specialty Ins. Co. v. Phillips , No. 4:20-CV-02525, 2021 WL 4215481, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2021). 15 S......
-
Insurance Coverage For Astroworld: Travis Scott's Intent Should Not Be A Factor For Insurance Coverage
...12 1A John Alan Appleman & Jean Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice ' 360 at 449 (1981). 13 Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co ., 242 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. 14 See, e.g., Centauri Specialty Ins. Co. v. Phillips , No. 4:20-CV-02525, 2021 WL 4215481, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2021). 15 S......
-
Courts Continue To Split On Whether Defense Obligation Is A First Party Benefit Under Colorado Law, But Agree Duty To Defend Is A Joint And Several Obligation
...an insured that is an additional insured, such as Horton, and not a named insured. See also, Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. 2007) (holding that defense costs of a named insured are first-party claims subject to Texas' prompt-pay statute, §§ 542.051-061, ......
-
Chapter 2
...Co., 369 S.E.2d 367 (N.C. App. 1988), review denied 373 S.E.2d 541 (N.C. 1988). Texas: Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 242 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2007). Virginia: Veney v. Duke, 2005 WL 3476760, at *2 (Va. Cir. Oct. 26, 2005) (“ ‘liability insurance’ essentially constitutes ‘litiga......
-
CHAPTER 5 Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance: Coverage A for "Bodily Injury" or "Property Damage" Liabilities
...Co., 369 S.E.2d 367 (N.C. App.), review denied 373 S.E.2d 541 (N.C. 1988). Texas: Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 242 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2007). Virginia: Veney v. Duke, 2005 WL 3476760, at *2 (Va. Cir. Oct. 26, 2005) (“ ‘liability insurance’ essentially constitutes ‘litigation ......
-
Insurance - Stephen M. Schatz, Stephen L. Cotter, and Bradley S. Wolff
...omitted). 28. Id. at 752, 707 S.E.2d at 372. 29. Id. 30. Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Lamar Homes v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 31. Id. 32. Id. at 752-53, 707 S.E.2d at 372 (Melton, J., dissenting). 33. Id. at 753, 707 S......
-
Appendix - Desk Book
...benefit was interpled and paid into the registry of the court, the penalty ceased accruing. Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2007). The Court answered certified questions from the Fifth Circuit on the extent of coverage provided by a standard commercial genera......