• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Sign Up
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise With Us
    • Monthly Banner Ad
    • Sponsor An Email
    • Post A Job
    • Product Launch

Agency Checklists

Massachusetts-inspired Insurance News & More

  • JOBS
  • Checklists
    • Starting Your Own Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Purchasing An Insurance Agency in Massachusetts
    • Why, When, & How: Times When A Massachusetts Insurance Agent Should Use A Business Broker
    • Deciding Whether or Not to Outsource Your Customer Service?
    • Employment Contracts & The Non-Compete Clause In Massachusetts
    • Hiring An Insurance Producer In Massachusetts
    • Insurance Agent to Agency Loans In Massachusetts
    • Moving Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • How Premium Financing Can Work For Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Remuneration Audit Checklist
    • Selling Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Applying For An Agency Loan
    • When The Auditor Calls
  • Data
  • Events
  • InsurShop
    • Insurance Quiz Time
    • Insurance Books
      • Innovation Titles
      • Improvement
      • Leadership
      • Licensing
      • Marketing
      • Sales
    • Insurance Films
    • Insurance Glossary
  • Partner News
You are here: Home / Insurance Law | Massachusetts / MA Insurance Law | Insurance Coverage Cases / Mass. Court Rules Zurich’s Builders’ Risk Policy Does Not Provide Coverage for Suit Against Builder Of Needham Home

Mass. Court Rules Zurich’s Builders’ Risk Policy Does Not Provide Coverage for Suit Against Builder Of Needham Home

September 25, 2018 by Owen Gallagher

A determined suit by a high-end builder, 689 Charles Street, LLC,  to have its insurer, American Zurich Insurance Company, provide coverage under a builders’ risk policy for a third-party lawsuit claiming defective construction by a home purchaser who paid $1,880,000 to the builder, ended in a decision for the insurer in federal court on September 4, 2018,

In the decision, 689 Charles River, LLC v. American Zurich Insurance Company (“Charles River” and “Zurich”), a federal district judge ruled in favor of Zurich on a motion for summary judgment. In its coverage suit, Charles River contended that Zurich’s builders’ risk policy was a third-party policy that ought to protect it from liability for damage suffered by the homeowner.

The property Charles River constructed at 689 Charles River Street, Needham, involved in the lawsuits

Sale of a home in Needham for $1,880,000 with claimed substandard construction

Charles River bought a parcel of land from the Archdiocese of Boston for $600,000 on Charles River Street in Needham in 2012. Thereafter, it built a single-family home on the property located at 689 Charles River Street, Needham. In July 2014, Charles River sold the new-completed home to a limited liability company (“LLC”). This LLC purchased the property on behalf of Steven J. Sands (“Sands”) for $1,880,000.

In the winter of 2015, the house suffered extensive ice dams that exposed multiple construction defects. Sands insurance company, Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (“PURE”) paid Sands $82,313.38 for ice dam damage.

After the ice dams brought to light the alleged construction defects, Sands and his LLC filed a lawsuit against Charles River in Norfolk Superior Court alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability, fraud and deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 93A.

Charles River, for its part, submitted the suits to Zurich which denied coverage. Charles River sued Zurich for coverage in state court, and Zurich removed the suit to the United States District Court for Massachusetts.

Charles River’s construction project and Zurich’s builders’ risk policy

Zurich had issued a builders’ risk policy to “689 Charles River Street LLC,” with a policy period that ran from July 3, 2013, to July 3, 2014.

The policy provided coverage for damage to new construction occurring at 689 Charles River Street, Needham, Massachusetts (“the Covered Property”), up to $850,000, and included coverage of certain consequential losses, such as debris removal, pollutant clean-up, fire department service charges, and storage of property at a temporary location.

The policy’s insuring agreement stated: “[Zurich] will pay for direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property from any Covered Cause of Loss described in this Coverage Form.”

The policy defined “Covered Property,” in part, as “[p]roperty which has been installed, or is to be installed in any ‘commercial structure’ or in any one to four-family dwelling. .. includ[ing]: (a) Your property; (b) Property of others for which you are legally responsible; [and] (c) Paving, curbing, fences and outdoor fixtures.”

The policy further provides that Zurich “may adjust losses with the owners of lost or damaged property if other than you. If we pay the owners, such payments will satisfy your claim against us for the owners’ property. We will not pay the owners more than their financial interest in the Covered Property.”

In the next paragraph, it states that Zurich “may elect to defend you against suits arising from claims of owners of the property. We will do this at our expense.”.

The policy covered “risk of direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property,” but excluded “loss or damage caused by or resulting from…[f]aulty, inadequate or defective:

  • Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting;
  • Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;
  • Materials used in the repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or
  • Maintenance of all or part of any Covered Property wherever located.”

The Sands lawsuit and the PURE subrogation suit

On October 9, 2015, Sands filed a lawsuit against Charles River seeking damages from Charles River and five individuals for the “spectacularly shoddy and stunningly substandard design and construction” of the house.

The lawsuit alleged the house Sands bought contained “serious latent defects” caused by “improper design, material, and/or workmanship,” which combined to make the house “unfit for human habitation.” However, the lawsuit claimed the defects did not manifest themselves until February 2015.

The alleged defects included inadequate or wholly missing insulation, improper air filtration, missing joists and structural beams, improper toilet installation, and sealing so poor as to cause “catastrophic water damage to the interior of the Home from typical regional weather such as snow, rain and ice” and “disastrous growth of mold.” The lawsuit alleged five counts for relief:

  • Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability.
  • Fraud and Deceit.
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation.
  • Negligence
  • Violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. ( Ex. 1 ¶¶ 42-79).

Subsequently, PURE filed its own suit in Suffolk Superior Court subrogating against Charles River for the $82,313.38 ice dam claim it paid on the Sands property.

Zurich denies Charles River’s claim as not being within the insuring agreement

In December 2015, Charles River submitted a claim to Zurich for defense costs and indemnity for the Sands suit claiming coverage under Zurich’s builders’ risk policy. Charles River reported the date of loss as February 15, 2015, the date of the Sands’ ice dam claim. Subsequently, Charles River submitted the PURE subrogation suit for claim payments PURE paid Sands. Zurich denied coverage for both claims.

After Zurich’s denials, Charles River sued Zurich in the Massachusetts Superior Court alleging its builders’ risk policy provided coverage for the Sands lawsuit and the PURE lawsuit.

Zurich removed Charles Rivers’ suit to federal court, and after some discovery, Zurich filed for summary judgment stating that there were no material facts in dispute requiring a jury trial, and based on these undisputed facts, Zurich was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.

The federal judge hearing the case agreed.

Court’s decision on builders’ risk policy’s coverage

In his decision, the judge noted the distinction in insurance law between “first-party policies” and “third-party policies.” With first-party policies covering physical loss or damage to the insured’s property caused by actions or effects outside of the policyholder’s control including the negligent conduct of others. However, third-party policies are intended to protect the insured by defending and indemnify insureds from liability for damage suffered by third parties arising out of actual or alleged actions of the insured.

In this case, the judge noted, the builders’ risk policy contained no obligation to defend. The word “defend” did appear in the policy but only once—in the section titled “Loss Payment,” where it stated: “We may elect to defend you against suits arising from claims of owners of the property. We will do this at our own expense.”

The judge found the words “may elect to defend” did not create an obligation to defend, because the option to defend only applied to Zurich—not Charles River.

Since the policy explicitly stated that it covered “direct physical loss or damage,” the court was not inclined to read the single sentence allowing Zurich to “elect to defend” Charles River against suit from “claims of owners of property” as a general promise to defend Charles River against legal claims from the Sands and PURE lawsuits.

Instead, the judge read the builders’ risk policy in question as expressly excluding “loss or damage caused by or resulting from. .. [f]aulty, inadequate or defective:

  • Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting;
  • Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;
  • Materials used in the repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or
  • Maintenance of all or part of any Covered Property wherever located.”

The Sands suit alleged that “serious latent defects”—including inadequate or wholly missing insulation, improper air filtration, missing joists, and structural beams, improper toilet installation, and poor sealing—were caused by “improper design, material, and/or workmanship.”

The federal judge found those allegations—of defective workmanship and dishonest acts—are exactly what the policy said it would not cover. To the judge, the policy was not reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that it covered the allegations of the third-party complaints by Sands or PURE.

The Court concluded: “Therefore, even if the builders’ risk policy could be considered a third-party liability policy—which the Court seriously doubts—Zurich has no obligation to defend or indemnify Charles River from the Sands and PURE lawsuits.”

Claim under second policy voided for failing to pay the policy’s premium

Charles River also claimed under another commercial policy that Zurich had issued to “689 Charles River Street LLC.” This policy was to have a policy period extending from July 3, 2014, to July 3, 2015. However, the Court found that Charles River never paid the premium for that second policy. The judge presumed that Charles River never paid the premium because it sold the house to Sands on July 5, 2014, two days after the policy was to have taken effect.

Based on the evidence of nonpayment and a flat cancellation issued by Zurich’s agent, the Court found this policy never took effect, and its terms were immaterial.

Notwithstanding the cancellation, this policy would have provided no coverage to Charles River after the property was sold. The policy had a “Commercial Marine Miscellaneous Declarations Unsold Dwelling” form which provided:

This policy insures vacant, unoccupied dwellings–the property of the first named insured–until such time as the property has been sold…In no event shall this policy cover completed dwellings which have been occupied in whole or in part for a period in excess of 30 days.”(Emphasis added).

Since the Sands lawsuit alleged that the property in question was conveyed on July 5, 2014, and the loss occurred on February 15, 2015, more than thirty days after the property became occupied, any insurance coverage ceased before the alleged date of loss.

Thirty days to appeal

Charles River has thirty days to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Agency Checklists will monitor any appeal if an appeal is filed. However, based on the purpose and terms of a builders’ risk policy, an appeal seems unlikely.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: MA Insurance Law | Insurance Coverage Cases Tagged With: Agency Checklists, Insurance Coverage | Massachusetts law, insurance mass, mass insurance, massachusetts insurance news, Massachusetts Insurers | Zurich, New England insurance

About Owen Gallagher

Owen Gallagher is an experienced insurance litigator as well as a certified mediator and arbitrator who specializes in insurance industry disputes. His interest and affinity for insurance began at a young age working the counter at his father’s assigned risk agency in Roxbury. Over the course of his career, Owen has argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and has helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.  Owen can be reached here.

Primary Sidebar

See Who’s Hiring On the AC Job Board

Sponsored Checklist

When Why & How To Use A Business Broker in Massachusetts

Sponsored

Career News

Acrisure Names Matthew Marolda as Chief Innovation Officer

Renaissance Alliance's Michael Cormier

Michael Cormier Named Chief Revenue Officer

Merchants Insurance Robert Zak

Robert M. Zak Appointed Board Chair of Merchants Insurance Group

Plymouth Rock Strengthens Marketing Team with Two New Appointments

Risman Insurance Agencies Hires Monica Adwani As Director of Marketing & Sales

Risman Insurance Agencies Hires Monica Adwani As Director of Marketing & Sales

Latest Agency Sales

Massachusetts insurance agency Partners Insurance Group

Partners Insurance Group Purchases The Interstate Insurance & Finance Company

Boston-based Risk Strategies

Risk Strategies Acquires Specialty Insurance Solutions

AssuredPartners Northeast acquires The Glynn Agency

AssuredPartners Acquires The Joseph A. Glynn Insurance Agency

Compass Planners Joins Forces With The Hilb Group

Compass Planners Joins Forces With The Hilb Group

More Agency Sales

Comments & Updates

  • Khalid on February Mass. Home Sales Hit 17-Year High
  • Robert on Marie Rose of Kaplansky Insurance Earns CPIA Designation
  • Michael Powers on Tips to Help Insureds Avoid Auto Repair Shop Fraud
  • Jim Steere on Tips to Help Insureds Avoid Auto Repair Shop Fraud
  • Tony Lucacio on Associate General Counsel For Goosehead Insurance Terminated After Participating In January 6th Events In Washington, D.C.

AC In Your Inbox

Massachusetts Law Updates

Mass. Court Bars Suit Seeking Plymouth Rock To Pay Title, Registration, And Inspection Fees On Total Losses

A class action complaint against Plymouth Rock sought a ruling on regulatory costs for first-party total loss claims.

Mass. Appeals Court Reverses $4 Million Defense Verdict Over Judge Advising Jury About Insurance

Massachusetts, as opposed to many states, allows insurance companies to pursue subrogation in the name of the insured rather than in the name of the insurance company. This case is one such example.

Tips to Help Insureds Avoid Auto Repair Shop Fraud: Part 2

Beware of written waivers!

How many automobile insureds receive renewal questionnaires that they do not return to their insurers? Quite a few, since many of the questionnaires, stated something to the effect that “if there are no changes to the information on the questionnaire, the insured does not have to return it.”

Failure To Return Auto-Renewal Questionnaire Results In Coverage Denial In Lamborghini Collision Lawsuit Due To Insurer’s “Snowbird Clause”

A First Circuit Court of Appeals found that the failure to return a renewal questionnaire with updated information resulted in two Massachusetts insureds losing their optional collision and liability coverage and umbrella coverage in a Naples, Florida collision involving their Toyota Highlander and a $100,000 Lamborghini.

More Mass. Law Updates

CAR News

MA Gas Prices: Another Week Another Increase At The Pump

1st Update 2021: The MA Private Passenger Auto Insurance Marketplace

1st Update 2021: The Commonwealth’s Commercial Auto Insurance Marketplace

Tips to Help Insureds Avoid Auto Repair Shop Fraud

View More CAR News

DOI News

Division Expects Mass. Auto Carriers To Submit New Rates By June 30

Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner Leads Insurance Standard-Setting

Mass AGO Continues Push For Auto Insurance Premium Reductions

DOI To Hold Hearing On CAR Proposed Performance Standards

View More DOI News

Insurance Fraud

Auto Body Shop Owner Sentenced For Tax Fraud

Acton Agent Sentence To 8.5 Years For Stealing $3.8 Million From Clients

Peabody Contractor Indicted For Insurance Fraud And Payroll Tax Evasion On $2.5 Million Of Under-The-Table Wages

Massachusetts Shares in $39.5 Million Multistate Settlement Agreement Over Insurance Company Data Breach

More Insurance Fraud News

Footer

Agency Checklists

About us
Contact us

14 Summer Street
Suite 102
Malden, MA 02148
617-598-3800
info@agencychecklists.com

Advertise on Agency Checklists

We offer a variety of ways to get help promote your company or product.

Announcements
Email Sponsorships
Partnerships
Custom Collaborations

*Affiliate Disclosure

Please note that any of Agency Checklists’ articles might contain one or more affiliate links. This means that any subsequent purchase resulting from these links may result in a commission for us, but at no additional cost to you. For example, as an Amazon Associate, Agency Checklists earns a commission from all qualifying purchases. By working with affiliates we can continue to keep Agency Checklists subscription free. Thank you for your support.

SEARCH OUR SITE

Explore Our Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Agency Checklists · All rights reserved.