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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
