Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation
Time 2 Minute Read

An Iowa federal court recently ruled that an insurer must pay its policyholder’s defense costs from the date of installation of the allegedly faulty product, even though the underlying suits failed to allege when damage purportedly occurred. The ruling opens the door under each of the policyholder’s successive liability policies from 2000 to 2008, allowing the policyholder to recover millions of dollars in defense costs.

The policyholder sought summary judgment concerning the date(s) on which the insurer’s defense obligation was triggered by fourteen of the fifteen claims asserted against it. The policyholder argued that the duty attached from the moment property damage potentially occurred, meaning the time when the underlying claimant installed or potentially could have installed the windows at issue in the underlying claims. The policyholder cited to the following evidence to support its claim: actual dates of installation (where available), dates of delivery, purchase or manufacture of the windows; and policy period referenced in the insurer’s claims notes as being potentially implicated by the claim.

The court ruled in favor of the policyholder. The court noted that while the underlying complaint contained little information regarding the time period in which damage to the windows was alleged to have occurred, the complaints contained allegations about when the defective products were sold or installed. Consequently, the court held that the underlying complaints’ “allegations, combined with the additional facts in the record regarding the sale, delivery, and installation of windows, [were sufficient] to establish that the [claims] had been ‘arguably or potentially’ brought within the coverage of the particular policy periods.”

The decision is a helpful reminder for policyholders and other insureds, alike, of the breadth of the defense obligation that resides in most standard-form general liability insurance policies. The decision also underscores the value of secondary evidence when faced with unclear or ambiguous facts and policy language. Here, despite lacking evidence of the date when damage occurred, secondary evidence of the date the faulty product was installed was sufficient to trigger the insurer’s defense obligations, thus effectively shifting the burden to the insurer to show when damage actually or potentially occurred to escape its duty to reimburse defense costs. The case is Pella Corp., et al. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 4:11-cv-00273-JEG (S.D. Iowa filed Jan. 16, 2018). A copy of the decision can be found here.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 5 Minute Read

With increasing frequency, companies are coming under fire for changes in customer loyalty programs, many of which occur without warning or recourse. Whether it is a persistent devaluation of miles or points, arbitrary expiration dates or some other perceived loss of value, customers and regulators are becoming increasingly discontent with programs that are touted as an added value to repeat customers.

Time 3 Minute Read

California law has become more favorable toward companies facing liabilities based on alleged events spanning multiple years. Previously, California intermediate appellate decisions favored “horizontal exhaustion,” which means that in cases involving a continuous loss, a first-level excess policy that sat over a primary policy could not be accessed until the applicable limits of any other underlying collectible insurance had been exhausted.

But now the California Supreme Court has ruled that vertical exhaustion applies to determine how a policyholder can access its excess insurance policies. Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Cement, 16 Cal.5th 67 (2024) (“Kaiser”). This means that the excess policy for a policy period can be accessed as soon as the underlying primary policy for that same period is exhausted. There is no need to wait for other years’ policies to be exhausted.

In a recent article published in PropertyCasualty360, Hunton attorneys Syed S. Ahmad, Scott P. DeVries and Yosef Itkin examined the Kaiser decision in more detail. In short, the court found support for its decision relying on the language of the excess policies, along with the policyholder’s reasonable expectations and the history of “other insurance” provisions.

Time 1 Minute Read

For many, the “metaverse” sounds like some obscure sci-fi fantasyland. You may be asking, where is it? How does one get there? Chances are, if you are reading this article on a screen then you are already interacting with what could be described as the metaverse. One thing is certain though, if the metaverse is to succeed, insurance will play a pivotal role. The metaverse is not without risk.

The Insurance Journal recently published an article by Hunton Insurance Recovery lawyers discussing risk management of exposures in the metaverse. In the article, Syed S. Ahmad, Kevin V. Small ...

Time 2 Minute Read

A golf cart, at least according to a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling about insurance coverage for a minor driving a golf cart. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Gonalez, No. 21-13304.

The policy covered bodily injury arising from the use of a “private passenger, farm, or utility auto.” It defined “private passenger auto” as “a four-wheel private passenger, station wagon or jeep-type auto, including a farm or utility auto as defined.”

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page