Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Invs., LLC
Decision Date | 10 June 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 14–1274.,14–1274. |
Citation | 880 N.W.2d 724 |
Parties | NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, Appellant, v. WESTLAKE INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Iowa Limited Liability Company, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Todd S. Schenk and Amber Coisman of Tressler LLP, Chicago, Illinois, and Mollie Pawlosky of Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Todd M. Lantz of Weinhardt & Logan, P.C., and Stephen R. Eckley of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Jeffrey A. Stone of Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC, Cedar Rapids, for amici curiaeHubbell Realty Company, Home Builders Association of Iowa, and Associated Builders & Contractors of Iowa.
Brenda K. Wallrichs of Lederer Weston Craig PLC, Cedar Rapids, for amici curiaeAmerican Insurance Association and Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.
An insurer sought a declaratory judgment stating it was not liable to the assignee of an excess commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy for damages awarded to the assignee in federal district court.The assignee brought a counterclaim against the insurer for breach of contract.A jury concluded the insurer was liable to the assignee for the damages under the excess CGL policy.On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the verdict against the insurer but reversed the district court award of prejudgment interest and remanded the case to the district court with instructions.The insurer sought further review, which we granted.On further review, we affirm the court of appeals decision affirming the district court judgment.We conclude the district court did not err in instructing the jury to determine whether the claimed damages arose due to an “accident” constituting an “occurrence” under the policy by considering “the viewpoint of the insureds and what they intended or should reasonably have expected.”Additionally, we conclude the district court did not err in ruling defective work performed by an insured's subcontractor may constitute an occurrence under the policy.The court of appeals decision will stand as the final decision of this court with respect to all other issues raised on appeal.
In 2002, developers and a general contractor began construction on an apartment complex in West Des Moines.In the spring of 2003, while the complex was still under construction, Westlake Investments, LLC, (Westlake) entered into negotiations to purchase it.In June, Westlake executed a purchase agreement.
That summer, the developers and general contractor (the insureds) purchased a primary CGL insurance policy with a $1,000,000 policy limit from Arch Insurance Group (Arch) and an excess CGL insurance policy with a $20,000,000 policy limit from National Surety Corporation(NSC).The terms of the Arch policy defined the scope of coverage under the NSC policy, as the NSC policy followed the form of and incorporated by reference the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the Arch policy.Both policies became effective on July 1, 2003, and expired on July 1, 2004.
During construction, numerous problems surfaced within the complex, including visible water penetration issues in several buildings.These problems did not hamper the sale to Westlake because the parties believed them to be aesthetic.However, that turned out not to be true.After the sale closed in November 2003, the construction defects throughout the complex continued to cause widespread water penetration issues.
In February 2008, Westlake sued the insureds in federal district court, seeking to recover lost profits, repair costs, and other damages under tort and contract theories.The insureds in turn sued numerous third-party defendants, including the architect who designed the complex and the subcontractors who helped to construct it.
As the primary insurer, Arch defended the suit on behalf of the insureds.After extensive pretrial litigation and discovery, Westlake and the insureds entered into settlement negotiations.Those negotiations culminated in a settlement agreement between Westlake, the insureds, and all but one of the subcontractors in September 2011.SeeWestlake Invs., LLC v. MLP Mgmt., LLC,842 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1121–25(S.D.Iowa2012).
In February 2012, the federal district court entered a consent judgment for $15,600,000 in favor of Westlake.Arch contributed $1,000,000 (the policy limit on the primary CGL policy) toward satisfaction of the judgment, and the third-party defendants contributed $1,737,500.Following these contributions, $12,762,500 awarded in the judgment remained unsatisfied.Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the insureds assigned their claims against NSC on the excess CGL policy to Westlake.
In October 2011, shortly after the parties agreed to settle but before the federal district court entered the consent judgment against the insureds, NSC initiated this declaratory judgment action in state district court.Specifically, NSC sought entry of a declaration stating it had no obligation under the NSC policy to pay any portion of the judgment awarded to Westlake.Westlake counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought entry of a declaration stating the NSC policy obligated NSC to pay Westlake the unsatisfied portion of any judgment awarded to Westlake.
Following discovery, Westlake and NSC filed competing motions for summary judgment on various grounds, one of which is relevant to this appeal.Westlake argued property damage resulting from defective work performed by an insured's subcontractor may constitute an accident that qualifies as an occurrence covered by the Arch policy (and therefore the NSC policy).In response, NSC argued property damage caused by defective workmanship does not constitute an accident or an occurrence under a CGL insurance policy.
Following a hearing, the district court granted Westlake's motion for partial summary judgment and denied NSC's motion for summary judgment.The district court concluded property damage resulting from defective work performed by an insured's subcontractor may constitute an accident and an occurrence under a post–1986 CGL insurance policy written to a general contractor.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in March 2014.Over the course of three weeks, the jury heard testimony from numerous witnesses, and the district court admitted hundreds of exhibits.At the close of the evidence, both parties moved for a directed verdict.The court denied both motions and declined to disturb its summary judgment ruling that property damage resulting from defective work performed by an insured's subcontractor may constitute an accident and an occurrence under the Arch policy.
Before the district court submitted the case to the jury, both parties objected to several jury instructions.Of particular relevance to this appeal, NSC objected to the jury instruction defining the terms “accident” and “occurrence” on the ground that the meaning of the term “accident” is objective rather than subjective.Accordingly, NSC proposed an instruction on the meaning of the term “occurrence” that defined the term “accident” as “an undesigned, sudden and unexpected event.”
The district court overruled all the objections to the jury instructions, noting its instruction on the meaning of the term “occurrence” relied on cases cited by both parties and concluding the instruction represented an accurate statement of Iowa law.Thus, the following jury instructions were among those the court submitted to the jury:
The jury deliberated for just over an hour before returning a verdict in favor of Westlake.Following the jury verdict, the district court entered a judgment awarding Westlake $12,439,500 with interest accruing at the statutory rate from the date of the filing of the counterclaim.1
Westlake moved to amend the judgment with respect to prejudgment and postjudgment interest.Westlake argued the prejudgment interest on the damages awarded in the declaratory judgment action properly accrued from the date the federal suit settled rather than the date the counterclaim in the declaratory judgment action was filed on the theory that the damages became liquidated damages when the parties settled.Westlake also requested an order clarifying the postjudgment interest on the damages awarded in the declaratory judgment action would accrue at the rate of five percent under Iowa Code section 535.2(2013).
The district court denied the motions.First, the...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...the ambiguity left by Pursell and resolved it in favor of a narrow reading of Pursell 's holding. In National Surety Corp. v. Westlake Investments, LLC , 880 N.W.2d 724 (Iowa June 10, 2016), the Iowa Supreme Court clarified:Our holding in Pursell was limited by its plain language to situati......
-
Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs., Inc.
...may constitute an "occurrence" triggering coverage under the standard-form CGL policy. See e.g.,National Surety Corporation v. Westlake, 880 N.W.2d 724, 740–42 (Iowa Sup.Ct.2016) (finding an insurable "occurrence" under identical provisions of the CGL policy involving resulting water and mo......
-
W. Side Salvage, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co.
...an ‘occurrence.’However, the more persuasive case is the Iowa Supreme Court's recent decision in Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Inv. LLC, 880 N.W.2d 724 (Iowa 2016) (hereinafter " Westlake" ). As the Plaintiffs argue, the present case is dissimilar from cases where a party is unhappy with fin......
-
Walnut Creek Townhome Ass'n v. Depositors Ins. Co.
...coverage exclusions for defective shingles. We disagree in part. Coverage questions are for the court. See Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Invs. LLC , 880 N.W.2d 724, 733–34 (Iowa 2016) (setting forth interpretive principles). But we conclude factual causation issues may be decided through the......
-
Another Win For Policyholders As Illinois Reverses Course And Joins The Majority Of States Recognizing CGL Policies Cover Property Damage Caused By Construction Defects
...746 S.E.2d 587 (Ga. 2013); Sheehan Const. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 938 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 2010); Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Invs., LLC, 880 N.W.2d 724 (Iowa 2016); Lee Builders, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 137 P.3d 486 (Kan. 2006); Peerless Ins. Co. v. Brennon, 564 A.2d 383 (Me. 1989)......
-
ON SHAKY GROUND: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR INJECTION-INDUCED SEISMICITY
...Okla. LLC, No. CJ-2016-137 (Dist. Ct., Okla. Cty., Okla., Feb. 8, 2017)).[61] Id.[62] Id.[63] Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Invs., LLC, 880 N.W.2d 724, 736 (Iowa 2016).[64] Id. at 727.[65] Id. at 726.[66] Id. at 728.[67] Id. at 736.[68] Id. at 744.[69] Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Vernon......