Exclusion Defeats Claim for Defense and Indemnity
Barry Zalma
Jul 24, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gYnzTn9b, see full video at https://lnkd.in/gE5rswiT and at https://lnkd.in/gfXP6wEs and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4550 posts.
Duckworth roofing, while repairing a roof for LGO Properties, caused a fire at the Tulane Building while using hot torches to repair the roof. In Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s Of London As Subrogee Of L.G.O. Properties, LLC v. Duxworth Roofing And Sheetmetal, Inc., No. 2022-CA-0821, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit (July 18, 2023) the defendant sought coverage when the defendant’s insurer denied coverage because of an exclusion called the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion.
FACTS
L.G.O. Properties, L.L.C. entered into a contract with Duxworth to perform roofing work at 4033 Tulane Avenue (hereinafter “the Tulane Building”). Duxworth’s roofing work included the use of hot tools and the installation of a process called “torch down roofing” to repair a leak on the roof of the Tulane Building. On December 9, 2016, the Tulane Building was damaged in a fire (hereinafter “the December 2016 fire”).
On October 12, 2017, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, as a subrogee of L.G.O. Properties, L.L.C. (hereinafter collectively “Lloyd’s of London”) filed a suit for damages naming Duxworth as a defendant. Lloyd’s of London’s petition alleges that Duxworth negligently used hot torches to perform roofing work on the Tulane Building thus causing the December 2016 fire. The petition also asserted that Duxworth failed to train its employees and take reasonable precautions to prevent damage to the Tulane Building.
James River, Duckworth’s insurer, filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Commercial General Liability insurance policy precludes Duxworth from receiving coverage. Specifically, James River maintained that the CGL policy excludes coverage for damages resulting from the use of torches to perform roofing work (hereinafter “the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion”).
Duxworth opposed James River’s motion for summary judgment arguing that the CGL policy and Lloyd’s of London’s petition contains language that does not entitle James River to summary judgment. The trial court granted James Rivers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing James River, without prejudice and before Duckworth could amend James Rivers appealed.
DISCUSSION
Duxworth asserts multiple assignments of error challenging the trial court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment.
The Language Of The Torch Down Roofing Exclusion Is Not Ambiguous
The extent of coverage is determined by the parties’ intent as reflected by the words in the policy. In order to resolve ambiguous language within an insurance policy, the policy must be construed as a whole. If the policy wording at issue is clear and unambiguously expresses the parties’ intent, the insurance contract must be enforced as written.
The Louisiana Court of Appeals found that the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion precludes Duxworth from receiving coverage from James River. A Court must give words and phrases their general meaning. Mr. Duxworth’s deposition revealed that he was a part of the crew that was present and performing torch down roofing repairs to the Tulane Building on the day of the December 2016 fire.
Since Mr. Duxworth testified that his team was instructed to repair a leak to the Tulane Building’s roof which required the use of hot tools and torches, also known as “torch down” roofing, and since Mr. Duxworth concedes that hot tools and torches were used to install a flat torch down roof to the Tulane Building the exclusion applies.
Given the plain, ordinary, and generally prevailing meaning of the words “arise out of,” it was clear to the Court of Appeals that Lloyd’s of London’s claims against Duxworth arose out of and are derived from the property damage caused by the fire that occurred during the time Duxworth was performing ongoing torch down roofing installation.
Duxworth’s contention that the James River’s CGL policy fails to define “Torch Down Roofing” is unpersuasive. Although the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion does not define the term “Torch Down Roofing Operations” it is undisputed that hot tools and torches were used on the date of the December 2016 fire. A plain reading of the CGL policy between James River and Duxworth provides that the damages caused by the use of hot tools to perform roofing repairs, triggers the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion, and precludes coverage.
Duty to Defend
A duty to defend is determined solely from the plaintiff’s pleadings and on the face of the policy. James River’s CGL policy provides: “we will have no duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking damages for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this insurance does not apply.” Lloyd’s of London’s petition alleges that Duxworth failed to safely use hot torches to perform roofing work on the Tulane Building.
The Torch Down Roofing Exclusion unambiguously excluded the claims against Duckworth. The trial court properly sustained James River’s motion for summary judgment and determining that the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion prevents coverage from the use of torch down roofing operations.
ZALMA OPINION
Everyone who is sued wants to use other people’s money to defend the suit. Duckworth bought a policy with a “Torch Down Roofing Exclusion” that obviously applied after the insured testified he and his staff were using torches to repair the building at the time it caught fire. Using that type of roofing with a policy that excludes it accepted the full risk of loss and will have to use his own funds to pay off the Lloyd’s Underwriters’ subrogation action.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
