| Q&A of the Week |
Athletic or Sports Participants Exclusion
An Illinois subscriber recently asked the following question:
My question concerns endorsement CG 21 01, the exclusion for athletic or sports participants. If a customer sponsors a little league team with t-shirts or uniforms and no other involvement, is that considered sponsoring a social or sporting event that is affected by CG 21 01?
ANSWER: The purpose of the endorsement is to make clear that the named insured who is a sponsor of any sport or athletic contest as described will not have any insurance under its policy for BI sustained by a person while he or she is a participant in that sport or contest. The endorsement would not preclude coverage if a third party were to be injured by the participant.
The distinction between sponsoring or simply donating money or material things is usually not an issue in relation to liability so long as there is no exercise of control, which would create a liability exposure. If a business provides nothing more than a donation or equipment, it may be difficult to place responsibility on the sponsor or donor for injuries or damage. If the sponsor wants to avoid liability, it is best to not control the event, not hold the event on the sponsor's business property, and not conduct itself so as to give the impression of anything like a joint venture between the business and the entity actually conducting the event.
Now, much still depends on the laws of various jurisdictions, so you might want to check with an attorney who is familiar with the law in your area to see how the courts there view this issue. |
| |
| Litigation Watch |
Your Work Exclusion under Review
A condominium association brought a declaratory judgment action against liability insurers for the condo's developer, seeking coverage for claims of negligence and negligent supervision in the construction of the condo units. This case is Cogswell Farm Condominium Association v. Tower Group, 2015 WL 149956.
Lemery was responsible for the construction of 24 residential condominium units between 2000 and 2003. In 2009, Cogswell sued Lemery and others, alleging negligence and negligent supervision in the construction of the units, specifically defective construction of weather barrier components; the defective weather barriers then led to water leak damage to the units.
Tower issued general liability policies to Lemery during these years. After Cogswell sued Lemery, Cogswell filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Tower, seeking a declaration that its claims against Lemery were covered under the Tower policies. The trial court concluded that uncertainty existed regarding whether property damage occurred during the policy periods and so, it ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held to determine whether the negligence claim could proceed.
The witness at the hearing opined that the defects in the weather barrier caused almost immediate water damage and that the damage went undetected for years. Following this hearing, Cogswell argued that its claims amounted to an occurrence and that the exclusions in the policies did not apply to resulting damage to nondefective exterior and interior finishes that directly resulted from the water infiltration. The insurer countered that the claims did not trigger coverage, but even if they did, exclusions j1 and j6 precluded coverage. The trial court decided that the insurer, Tower, did not have a duty to defend or have an obligation to pay Cogswell if Cogswell was successful in its underlying lawsuit against Lemery. This appeal followed.
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire noted that on appeal, Cogswell contends that the trial court erred in determining that exclusion j1 operated to bar coverage for all the units at all times. Cogswell said that exclusion j1 excludes coverage for property damage to property owned by Lemery while he owned that property prior to sale to the unit owners, but that after the sale, the exclusion did not apply because Lemery no longer owned the property. The Supreme Court agreed with Cogswell.
The next argument put forth by Cogswell was that the trial court erred in finding the exclusion j6 applied because Cogswell was not contending that Tower was obligated to pay for costs associated with repairing the defective weather barriers. Rather, Cogswell argued that the damage for which coverage is claimed is the damage to the nondefective work that was caused by the defectively constructed weather barriers. Tower countered that because Lemery was the general contractor responsible for the construction of the units, exclusion j6 applies to preclude coverage for all damage caused by Lemery's defective work on the units that was not defective. Tower claimed that Cogswell's interpretation of the exclusion would undermine the purpose of the general liability policy in that such an interpretation would make the policy a performance bond.
The court said that the exclusion could be interpreted in two ways. One way is that the exclusion applies to all damage to the insured's work caused by the defective work. The other interpretation is that the exclusion applies only to those parts of the property on which the allegedly defective work was done. The first interpretation would prevent coverage for all damage resulting from Lemery's defective work, including damage to the nondefective parts of the condo units. The second interpretation would preclude coverage for damage to the defective weather barriers, but allow coverage for damage to the nondefective parts of the units that was caused by the defective weather barriers.
Because the exclusion is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation in the opinion of the court, the court found the exclusion to be ambiguous. Therefore, exclusion j6 was held to apply to property damage to the defectively constructed portions of the units, but was held not to apply to damage to those portions of the units that were not defectively constructed by Lemery, but were damaged as a result of the defective work.
The ruling of the trial court was reversed and remanded.
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviews the your work exclusion in the CGL form and finds that the exclusion is ambiguous and so, it does not apply to damage done that resulted from defective work. The defective work was not covered but resulting damage from that defective work was covered. |
| |
|
|
|
| Subscribe to FC&S |
| FC&S Online is the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and anlaysis for the P&C industry. FC&S offers unbiased analysis and interpretation and keeps you current on the latest ISO and AAIS revisions. Providing instant access to the very latest information, FC&S is the resource that agents, attorneys, brokers, risk managers, underwriters, and adjusters rely on to research commercial and personal lines coverage issues. |
| • |
Quickly and accurately determine coverage under a policy at the time of loss |
| • |
Research coverage issues and interpretations, including court cases |
| • |
Access experts live to discuss specific situations |
| • |
Find answers to questions based on real-world claims disputes |
| • |
View and print ISO forms |
| • |
Access updates on breaking litigation and bureau developments |
 |
|
| |
| Join Us Live! |
| FC&S editors regularly conduct web-based demos of the service. Feel free to contact Christine Barlow, cbarlow@ SummitProNets.com, for more information. They only take 30 minutes, a small investment of time that will help you learn all that FC&S Online has to offer. |
| |
| Contact Us |
As always, your comments and questions are welcome.
Contact us at:
FC&S Department
Phone: 800-543-0874
Fax: 859-692-2246
Email: eAlerts@nuco.com |
| |
|
