A federal district court has ruled that an insurer was not obligated to cover claims stemming from allegedly faulty emergency-mitigation measures and repairs made to a roof damaged by Hurricane Isaac.

The case

Cedar Ridge, LLC alleged that its Riverlands Shopping Center was damaged by Hurricane Isaac and that it contracted with Roof Technologies, Inc. to perform “emergency-mitigation work,” which generally consisted of fastening tarps to Riverlands' roof. Cedar Ridge then filed a claim with Landmark American Insurance Company and RSUI Indemnity Company (together, “Landmark”), which was denied on the ground that the emergency-mitigation work had caused additional damage to Riverlands.

Cedar Ridge sued Landmark, which filed a complaint against Roof Tech, asserting that, “[I]n the event [Landmark was] held liable to plaintiff for any of the claims asserted, third-party defendant, Roof Technologies, Inc. [was] liable to [Landmark] for the damage it caused to the property at issue as a result of its defective workmanship and by the improper installation of tarps on the roof following Hurricane Isaac.”

Roof Tech moved for summary judgment.

The policy

The policy provided:

3. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following, 3.a. through 3.c. But if an excluded cause of loss that is listed in 3.a. through 3.c. results in a Covered Cause of Loss, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that Covered Cause of Loss.
….
c. Faulty, inadequate or defective:
….
(2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;
(3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling;
or
(4) Maintenance;
of part or all of any property on or off the described premises.

The court's decision

The court granted the insurer's motion.

In its decision, the court reasoned that if the policy did not apply to any damages caused by Roof Tech's allegedly faulty work, then Roof Tech was entitled to summary judgment on Landmark's claim. The court noted that the policy excluded damage resulting from faulty workmanship, repair, or construction, and it pointed out that Landmark's third party complaint was premised on “defective workmanship” and the “improper installation” of tarps. As the court explained, “faulty repairs, including faulty short-term mitigation repairs,” were subject to a policy exclusion, and Landmark, the only party that opposed Roof Tech's motion, had “not come forward with any admissible evidence to the contrary.” The court therefore concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the policy exclusion applied to Roof Tech's allegedly faulty repairs.

The case is Cedar Ridge, LLC v. Landmark American Ins. Co., No. 13–672 (E.D. La. Jan. 27, 2014). Attorneys involved include: Joseph M. Bruno, Daniel A. Meyer, Bruno & Bruno, New Orleans, LA, for Cedar Ridge, LLC; Stephen R. Barry, Kathleen Crowe Marksbury, Barry & Piccione, New Orleans, LA, for Landmark American Insurance Company et al.

Originally published on FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center. FC&S Legal is the industry's ONLY single-source, comprehensive portal developed specifically for insurance coverage law professionals. To find out more, visit www.fcandslegal.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

This article is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Special Reports /

The Case, the Policy and the Decision: Faulty Mitigation Dooms Coverage

Related Stories

Recommended For You