Construction Defects, Standing Alone, Do Not Constitute Property Damage
Post 4858
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gWBUqUeu, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gy3yzbqg and at https://lnkd.in/gbMQzrJQ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts was asked to decide whether the costs of repairing or removing construction defects constitute "damages because of . . . 'property damage'" within the meaning of a commercial general liability policy.
In Lawrence H. Lessard & another v. R.C. Havens & Sons, Inc., & others, No. 23-P-346, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Essex (August 14, 2024) the Appeals Court was faced with an issue of first impression in Massachusetts: are construction defects "property damage" as defined in a CGL policy?
THE UNDERLYING ACTION
In the underlying action, Lawrence H. Lessard and Jennifer A. Meshna (together, the homeowners) sued their builder for the faulty construction of their home. At trial a jury found numerous construction defects and awarded the homeowners damages. Meanwhile, Main Street America Assurance Company (MSA) -- the insurer that issued to the defendants R.C. Havens with a commercial general liability policy covering the relevant period -- intervened in the action and sought a declaration that it did not have a duty to indemnify R.C. Havens under the policy.
As the project neared completion, the homeowners began to discover substantial issues with the quality of the construction. A number of problems compromised the structural integrity of the home. A portion of a structural post that was supposed to run from the roof to the basement was missing, and partition walls, sill plates, and support beams were installed incorrectly. As a result, some partition walls were improperly weight bearing.
The jury in the underlying action awarded the homeowners $114,159 for the structural defects, $14,207 for the roof deck, $37,000 for the siding, and $52,500 for the metal roof. The jury also awarded the homeowners $925 for problems with the home's insulation, $18,036 for mold damage, $8,430 for loss of use of their home during repair work, and $27,276 for costs of investigating the defects.
A Superior Court judge ruled for MSA on all the issues.
DISCUSSION
As a general principle, the insured (or the individual seeking coverage) bears the initial burden of proving that the claimed loss falls within the coverage of the insurance policy. If the insured meets that burden, the burden then shifts to the insurer to show that a separate exclusion to coverage is applicable.
To resolve the homeowners' appeal, the Appeals Court only needed to address whether the losses constituted property damage within the meaning of the policy.
Policies define "property damage" as physical injury, which suggests the property was not defective at the outset, but rather was initially proper and injured thereafter. Because faulty construction is defective at the outset the cost to repair are not claims for property damage. For example an improperly installed window would not be "property damage," but resulting water damage to the surrounding wall would be.
The Appeals court held that construction defects, without more, do not constitute property damage within the meaning of a commercial general liability policy. The summary judgment record established that the underlying jury verdict awarded damages for the costs of repairing or removing the construction defects themselves.
Since there was no evidence that the construction defects caused injury to other property, MSA had no duty under its commercial general liability policy to indemnify R.C. Havens for the final judgment because construction defects, standing alone, do not constitute property damage within the meaning of a commercial general liability policy and the judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Liability insurance is designed to protect an insured against fortuitous events that cause direct physical damage and damage to the property of persons other than the insured. When there is no direct physical loss there can be no coverage because the only damage was the construction defects that were never undamaged and that did not cause damage to other property. The builder must pay from its own funds the judgment.
(c) 2024 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 to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk & Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
