Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | G050759 |
| Citation | 6 Cal.App.5th 1258,212 Cal.Rptr.3d 231 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant and Appellant. |
Mahoney & Soll, Paul H. Mahoney, Richard A. Soll, Claremont; Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold and Dennis Neil Jones, Ventura, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rutan & Tucker, Gerard M. Mooney, Jr., and Duke F. Wahlquist, Costa Mesa, for Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, Robert L. Sallander, Jr., and Robin L. Thornton, San Ramon, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (Navigators) issued commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies (the Policies) to Moorefield Construction, Inc. (Moorefield), a licensed general contractor. In this appeal, we address the meaning, scope, and application of two standard provisions of the Policies. The first is the coverage A section, which provides that the insurance applies to property damage caused by an "occurrence," defined to mean an "accident." The second is the supplementary payments provision, which requires the insurer to pay "[a]ll costs taxed against the insured" in any lawsuit the insurer defends on behalf of the insured.
Moorefield appeals from a judgment in favor of Navigators, entered in a lawsuit in which Navigators sought a declaration of its rights and duties under the Policies. Navigators's lawsuit was corollary to construction defect litigation arising out of the construction of a building to be used as a Best Buy store in Visalia, California. Moorefield was the general contractor for the construction of the building. Moorefield and the developer, D.B.O. Development No. 28 (DBO), entered into a construction contract. Several years after the construction was completed, the owner of the building, JSL Properties, LLC (JSL), sued Moorefield and DBO for breach of the construction contract and negligence based on claims the flooring had failed. DBO filed a cross-complaint against Moorefield and various subcontractors for indemnity. Navigators accepted Moorefield's tender of defense of JSL's complaint and DBO's cross-complaint, subject to a reservation of rights.
During the course of litigation, evidence obtained in discovery showed the most likely cause of the flooring failure was that flooring tiles had been installed on top of a concrete slab that emitted moisture vapor in excess of specifications. Evidence also showed that Moorefield knew of the results of two tests showing excessive moisture vapor emission from the concrete, yet had directed the flooring subcontractor to install the flooring anyway. Evidence also established the cost to repair the flooring was $377,404.
The litigation settled for a total settlement sum of $1,310,000. JSL received $885,000 while DBO received $425,000. On Moorefield's behalf, Navigators contributed its policy limits of $1 million toward the settlement. Moorefield independently contributed an additional $150,000. The remaining $160,000 was made up of contributions from Best Buy Stores, LP (Best Buy), and the defendant subcontractors.
In the meantime, Navigators filed this lawsuit seeking a declaration it had no duty under the Policies to defend or indemnify Moorefield. Navigators contended the flooring failure was not a covered occurrence under the Policies because it was not the result of an accident.
Following a bench trial, the trial court found there was no covered occurrence under the Policies because Moorefield had directed the flooring subcontractor to install the flooring despite Moorefield's knowledge that moisture vapor emission from the concrete slab exceeded specifications. The trial court found that Moorefield had not met its burden of proving what portion, if any, of the $1 million paid by Navigators came within the supplementary payments provision of the Policies. The trial court also found that Navigators had no duty to make payments under the supplementary payments provision because Moorefield's liability arose from a noncovered claim. The judgment requires Moorefield to reimburse $1 million to Navigators.
Moorefield's appeal raises two primary issues, one related to the coverage A provision of the Policies and the other related to the supplementary payments provision of the Policies. These two issues are addressed, respectively, in parts I and II of the Discussion section.
Issue I: Was the Flooring Failure a Covered Occurrence Within the Meaning of the Policies? No. The Policies define "occurrence" to mean "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." Under California law, "[a]n accident does not occur when the insured performs a deliberate act unless some additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs that produces the damage." (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 388, 392, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 (Fire Ins. Exchange ), citing Merced Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mendez (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 41, 51, 261 Cal.Rptr. 273.) The most likely cause of the flooring failure was moisture vapor emitted from the concrete slab. We conclude Moorefield's conduct was not an accident because it was a deliberate decision made with knowledge that the moisture vapor emission rate from the concrete slab exceeded specifications. The damage was not produced by an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening.
Navigators therefore had no duty to indemnify Moorefield and was entitled to recoup that portion of the $1 million paid toward settlement that was attributable to damages.
Issue II: Does the Supplementary Payments Provision Apply to Any Portion of the $1 Million Paid Toward Settlement by Navigators? Yes. A supplementary payments provision in a CGL policy includes attorney fees when they are or would be taxable as costs against the insured. That would include, for example, prevailing party attorney fees under a contract. The construction contract between Moorefield and DBO had such an attorney fees provision. Supplementary payments are tied to an insurer's duty to defend, not the insurer's duty to indemnify. Here, the evidence established that Navigators had a duty to defend Moorefield at the time of the settlement because there was a potential for coverage of the claim that Moorefield was responsible for the flooring failure. Although the trial court found, in effect, that Navigators had no duty to defend, that finding was not retroactive to the time of the settlement.
Thus, Navigators had a duty to compensate Moorefield under the supplementary payments provision of the Policies. That duty was not extinguished by the determination that Navigators had no duty to indemnify.
The trial court found that Moorefield did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence what portion, if any, of the $1 million settlement payment was attributable to supplementary payments. Navigators, however, bore the burden of proof on that issue. The trial court erred by misallocating the burden of proof to Moorefield. The trial court's error was prejudicial because substantial evidence does not support an implied finding that all of the $1 million paid by Navigators was for damages and none was for supplementary payments. The evidence established conclusively that the cost of repair damages was $377,404.
As a result, we conclude Moorefield must reimburse Navigators only for the portion of the $1 million paid by Navigators that is attributable to damages. Moorefield may keep that portion of the $1 million paid by Navigators that is attributable to the supplementary payments provision of the Policies. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial limited to the issue of the amount of the $1 million paid by Navigators that is attributable to damages, not attorney fees and costs of suit under the supplementary payments provision.
Moorefield is a licensed general contractor specializing in the construction of shopping centers, movie theaters, and commercial and retail buildings. The Policies issued by Navigators to Moorefield were effective from April 1, 2002 to April 1, 2003. The Policies were renewed annually to April 1, 2006. There is no material difference in language in the Policies.
In coverage A, "Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability," the Policies provide: The Policies state: "This insurance applies to ‘bodily injury’ and ‘property damage’ only if: [¶] ... The ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ is caused by an ‘occurrence ’ that takes place in the ‘coverage territory.’ " (Italics added.) The Policies define "occurrence" to mean "an accident , including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." (Italics added.)
The Policies include a supplementary payments provision providing that Navigators will pay "[a]ll costs taxed against the insured" in any lawsuit Navigators defends on behalf of the insured.
Between 2002 and 2004, DBO developed the Packwood Creek East Regional Shopping Center project in Visalia, California. In 2003, DBO engaged Moorefield to act as the general contractor for the shopping center project, which was to include the construction of a 30,055-square-foot building to be used as a Best Buy store (the Best Buy Building). In January 2002, DBO entered into a 15-year lease with Best Buy.
DBO and Moorefield entered into an owner-contractor agreement dated April 30, 2003 (the Construction Contract)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Traveler's Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Actavis, Inc.
...an "accident" merely because the insured did not intend to cause injury.’ " ( Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Construction, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1258, 1275, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 231 ( Navigators ).)In Navigators , the insured, a general contractor, made the deliberate decision t......
-
AIU Ins. Co. v. McKesson Corp.
...to the injury or damage was unintended by the insured and a matter of fortuity." Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., Inc. , 6 Cal.App.5th 1258, 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 246 (2016) (cleaned up). Moreover, accident "does not apply to an act's consequences, but instead applies t......
-
Gerlach v. K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC
...the error, a result more favorable to [the appellant] would have been reached." ’ " ( Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Construction, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1258, 1287, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 231.) When Gerlach raised the issue of compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 458 in......
-
Salto v. Empire Transp. Servs.
... ... EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents D080075 ... Cal.App.5th 252, 313-314; see also Navigators Specialty ... Ins. Co. v. Moorefield ... ...
-
Insurance Law
...contribution.115[Page 73]--------Notes:1. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 100.2. Id. at p. 107.3. Ibid.4. Id. at p. 109.5. Id. at p. 111.6. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1258.7. Id. at p. 1268.8. Id. at p. 1263.9. Ibid. [quoting Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal. App.4th 388, 392 Fire Ins. Ex......