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 ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
