legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Niguel Ridge Homeowners Assn. v. American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Plaintiffs, a homeowners association and several of its individual members, filed several lawsuits seeking damages for construction defects. The lawsuits, including cross-complaints filed by the defendants, were consolidated and ultimately settled. The parties involved in that litigation included the Buie Corporation (Buie), a licensed general contractor, and Altifillisch Contractors, Inc. (ACI), a grading subcontractor. The liability insurance carriers for both Buie and ACI contributed to the payment made to plaintiffs.

In the present action, plaintiffs jointly sued three insurance companies that provided liability insurance to ACI seeking equitable subrogation, contribution, and declaratory relief. They allege Buie was either a named insured or an additional insured under ACIs policies, the settlement payments by Buies carriers in the construction defect litigation arose from ACIs grading work, and both Buie and its carriers assigned their contribution and subrogation rights against defendants to plaintiffs.
The trial court entered judgment for defendants after granting their motions for summary judgment. First, as to the insurance policies that included additional insured endorsements extending the named insureds liability insurance coverage to others where the named insured was contractually obligated to do so, the court found plaintiffs had failed to present admissible evidence establishing a triable issue of fact as to whether ACI had agreed to name Buie as an additional insured on its liability insurance policies. Second, the court found the partnership exclusion clause contained in the policies issued by one defendant excluded coverage.
Court conclude plaintiffs presented sufficient admissible evidence creating a triable issue of fact as to whether the contracts between Buie and ACI obligated ACI to include Buie as an additional insured on ACIs liability policies and reverse the judgment as to two insurers. However, court conclude the court properly found the partnership/joint venture exclusion in the third carriers policies barred plaintiffs right to recover from it.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale