NU Online News Service, Dec. 3, 1:33 p.m. EST

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, a Chartiscompany, was not successful in getting a federal judge in Floridato say the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify a drywallcontractor.

The contractor, F. Vicino Drywall Inc., is named as a defendantin 17 lawsuits related to allegedly defective Chinese drywall andrecently filed a motion to dismiss a motion by National Union forsummary judgment on the basis that policy exclusions clear thecompany from having to defend or indemnify National Union.

National Union issued three umbrella policies to F. Vicino. Theinsurer was seeking a ruling that it owes nothing to F. Vicino,though the Deerfield Beach, Fla.-based contractor has not yetrequested payment or reimbursement of defense costs from NationalUnion, according to a ruling from U.S. District Court in theSouthern District of Florida.

F. Vicino filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact there isno controversy.

"I conclude that this action does not qualify as a proper caseor controversy," wrote Judge Alan S. Gold. "Even if all theallegations in the complaint are true, [National Union] has notalleged a judgment or settlement that would exhaust the primaryinsurance and trigger its own excess policies.

"The parties' liabilities at this time are merely contingent andmay never materialize," the judge continued.

Judge Gold said National Union may file an amended complaint ifa controversy--that its policies will indeed be called upon by F.Vicino--arises.

Amerisure Cleared of Coverage

In other drywall-related litigation out of the Southern Districtof Florida, a judge ruled Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. will nothave to defend a builder against drywall-related lawsuits becausepolicies between the two were written after damages in anunderlying case occurred.

Amerisure sought a summary judgment against Albanese Popkin theOaks Development Group, which is being sued by a homeowner allegingdamage due to the alleged corrosive effects of Chinese drywall.

Amerisure issued a commercial general liability policy toAlbanese in January 2008. The suit against Albanese relates toalleged damaged first reported by the homeowners in 2006 butAlbanese, and the homeowners, argue that the damage wascontinuous.

"The fact that the damage was continuous in nature is irrelevantto the court's analysis," wrote Judge Kenneth A. Marra in grantingAmerisure's motion. "Therefore, there is no coverage or duty todefend."