Webcor Constr., LP v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 12 March 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 17-cv-2220 YGR |
Citation | 372 F.Supp.3d 1061 |
Parties | WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, LP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. And Third Party Complaint Old Republic General Insurance Corp., Third Party Plaintiff, v. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co., Third Party Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
James Hugh Wilkins, Wilkins, Drolshagen & Czeshinski, Fresno, CA, for Third Party Defendant.
John R. Campo, Attorney at Law, Redwood City, CA, for Third Party Plaintiff.
ORDER GRANTING MOTORISTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING OLD REPUBLIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Presently pending before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment by third-party plaintiff Old Republic General Insurance Corporation ("Old Republic") and third-party defendant Motorists Mutual Insurance Company ("Motorists") regarding the latter's duty to defend in an underlying construction case. (Dkt. Nos. 211 and 212.) The Court heard oral argument on the motions on February 5, 2019. Having duly considered the parties' written and oral arguments, and the admissible evidence submitted, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) the cross-motion of Motorists for summary judgment is GRANTED ; and (2) the motion of Old Republic for summary judgment is DENIED . The Court finds that the undisputed material facts show that there was no potential for coverage under the Motorists policy at issue with respect to additional insureds Architectural Glass and Aluminum Co., Inc. ("AGA") and Webcor Construction, LP dba Webcor Builders ("Webcor") for claims raised in the underlying litigation. Accordingly, a duty to defend did not attach.
The instant third-party complaint stems from an underlying construction defect action filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco captioned CDC San Francisco LLC v. Webcor Builders. Inc. et al. , Case No. CGC15-546222. The complaint in the underlying action alleged that plaintiff therein, CDC San Francisco LLC, entered into a construction agreement with Webcor, the general contractor, to build a project known as the Intercontinental Hotel. ] .) The agreement, in part, called for Webcor to design and build an exterior curtainwall system that would serve as the exterior wall of the hotel. The exterior curtainwall system is "an interconnected system of azure-blue glass that forms the building's entire exterior such that the Hotel appears in the San Francisco skyline as a 32[-]story translucent blue tower of glass." (Id. ¶ 12.) AGA was the "curtainwall contractor" for the project, and was responsible for designing, engineering, testing, fabricating, delivering, and installing the curtainwall system. (Motorists Fact2 4.)
The underlying action, filed on June 9, 2015, alleged that the curtainwall glazing system was comprised of a structural frame into which insulated glass units (IGUs) were fastened. (ORRJN Exh. A ¶ 12.) The IGUs were comprised of two panes of glass, a spacer bar, structural silicone sealant to secure the panes of glass and metal spacer together, and polyisobutylene ("PIB") sealant to form a vapor barrier or hermetic seal around the interior perimeter of the module. (Id. ; Motorist Fact 7.) AGA also subcontracted with Viracon, Inc. to manufacture the IGUs. (Motorist Fact 6.) AGA subcontracted with Midwest Curtainwalls, Inc. ("Midwest") to (1) design and manufacture the curtainwall frame; (2) glaze (or glue) the IGUs into the frame; and (3) ship the completed curtainwalls to San Francisco where AGA installed them at the project site. (Motorists Fact 9, 10.) The project included 6,400 IGUs. (Old Republic Fact 8.) The project was completed around February 27, 2008. (Old Republic Fact 9.)
In the underlying action, CDC San Francisco LLC alleged that migration or movement of the PIB sealant had caused a gray film or "mottling" in the interior space of the IGUs, as well as discoloration of the structural silicon to a brownish color on the visible edges of the IGUs. (Motorists Fact 12; ORRJN Exh. A ¶ 14.) The complaint therein alleged "there is no way to repair the PIB without damaging the [IGUs] and the exterior Curtain Wall glazing system to access the film formation." (ORRJN Exh. A at ¶ 14.) The complaint explained in considerable detail the defects with the curtain wall system and the warranties associated therewith. (See id. ¶¶ 14-25.) In addition to these factual allegations, the underlying complaint alleged potential damages based upon the "substantial costs to repair the deficient work" and the "costs to repair property damaged by deficient work...." (Id. ¶¶ 29, 34, 41, 45, 51, 57, 61, 67, 72, 77, 81, 86, 90, and 95 (emphasis supplied).)
Subcontractor Midwest obtained a commercial general liability policy from third-party defendant Motorists, with an effective policy period of June 30, 2006 to June 30, 2007 (Motorists policy number 33.261515-90E or "the Policy"). (Motorists Fact 19.) The Policy included as additional insureds both AGA and Webcor. (Id. ) The additional insured endorsement of the Policy stated:
(Motorists Fact 21.) The Policy covered "property damage" defined as "physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property" and "loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured." (Motorists Fact 22.)
Further, the Policy applied to property damage only if it "occur[ed] during the policy period." (Campo Decl., Exh. 3 at MM000226). Under the terms of the Policy, property damage (Id. )
In pertinent part, the Policy specifically excluded from coverage:
(Id. at MM000229-30, 240-41.) The Policy also defined certain terms relevant here, including:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Allwire, Inc.
...factual allegations of physical property injury, which it insists are absent here. MSJ at 25 (citing Webcor Constr., LP v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. , 372 F. Supp. 3d 1061, 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ). According to Travelers, Rising Edge only alleges damages stemming from Allwire's own defective prod......
-
Schuman v. Microchip Tech. Inc., Case No. 16-cv-05544-HSG
... ... See Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).Plaintiffs are former employees ... ...
-
Gonsalves & Santucci v. Greenwich Ins. Co.
...as Greenwich notes, the duty to defend is not triggered by damage to the TDPs themselves. Webcor Construction, LP v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 372 F. Supp. 3d 1061, 1065-67 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ("Here, the undisputed evidence shows that the claims of the underlying action . . . concern[ ] only ......
-
Vernic v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (In re Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co.)
...even if it was, there was no coverage given the policy's exclusions. (Liquidator's Br. at 18-19 (citing Webcor Constr., LP v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. , 372 F. Supp. 3d 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2019), aff'd , 801 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2020) ).) The Policy in the present case "did not cover Vernic's cont......