National Insurance Law Forum : Insurance Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : National Insurance Law Forum : Insurance Coverage, Bad Faith Litigation

Using New Jersey as an example of a state that might interpret the insurance policy before it differently due to that state’s rules favoring “broad reading of coverage provisions,” the Dewsnup Court wrote that “the Oregon rules of interpretation, of course, are different, requiring construction against the insurer only in the case of unresolvable ambiguity.” While this statement is helpful because it clarifies that ambiguity, by itself, does not require interpretation against the insured, the Dewsnup case is even more helpful for the fact that the court did not even reach an ambiguity analysis. Instead, the Court held that the undefined policy term “roof” is unambiguous in the first place.

In relevant part, the policy at issue in Dewsnup excluded from coverage water damage to the interior of a dwelling or personal property unless the water damage occurred as a result of damage to the “roof” caused by a windstorm or a falling object. As part of a roof repair, the insureds had removed the roof’s wood shakes and physically attached to the roof several sheets of plastic as a temporary cover. After a storm ripped off one sheet of plastic, the insured went on the roof to replace it. However, the insured “lost his footing and fell off the roof, ripping off all the sheets of plastic as he fell.” As a result, the rain from the storm entered the home through the joints in the plywood sheathing “causing considerable damage to the interior of the house and to plaintiffs’ personal property.”

The insureds argued that their loss should be covered because the plastic sheets, which were a part of the roof, were damaged by a windstorm and/or a falling object (the insured). The Court consulted a dictionary and rejected this argument, concluding “that the term ‘roof’ has an unambiguous meaning, and that it does not include the tarps that plaintiffs placed over the house while the shakes were being replaced.” Most refreshing was the Court’s resort to old-fashioned common-sense, writing: “If someone attempted to sell a house that was covered by such a plastic sheet, we doubt that any reasonable buyer would believe that he or she was buying a house that had a ‘roof.’ Most likely, the buyer would say, ‘Where’s the roof?’” The Court’s use of common-sense reasoning should lend some support to insurers using the same tactic in face of insureds’ arguments that undefined policy terms are unambiguous.

The policy defines “employee” to include a “leased worker,” but not to include a “temporary worker.” “Temporary worker” is defined as “a person who is furnished to you to substitute for a permanent ‘employee’ on leave or to meet seasonal or short-term workload conditions.”

The insured contended that the policy definition of “temporary worker” is ambiguous as it could be read to apply to any person who was hired to meet seasonal or short-term workload conditions, regardless of who furnished the worker. The insured also contended that the policy is unclear as to whether the worker may “furnish” himself. In addition, the insured contended that the record supported that the individual was hired to meet short-term workload needs.

Employing Oregon’s rules to interpret the terms of an insurance contract, the Oregon Court of Appeals found that the policy’s definition of “temporary worker” plainly and unambiguously provided that a temporary worker is “a person who is furnished to you” either to substitute for a permanent employee or to meet seasonal or short-term workload conditions. The court then turned to the question of the meaning of “a person who is furnished to you,” and whether it encompasses an individual who plaintiff hired directly and whether a person can “furnish” himself or herself to an employer. As the policy does not define “furnished,” the court looked to the plain meaning of the term. Utilizing Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary, the court found that, in the context of human labor, the definition of “furnish” could conceivably mean that a person could provide or supply himself or herself to an employer. The court found, however, that ambiguity is not determined by what a single word in a policy means in the abstract, but what that term most likely was intended to mean when viewed in the context in which the term is used in the policy as a whole.

The court held that the insured’s proposed reading of the term “furnished” becomes untenable in the context of the whole policy because it renders the entire phrase “a person furnished to you” superfluous. Oregon courts do not lightly assume that contract language is superfluous in determining whether a phrase is ambiguous. For that reason, the court concluded that the phrase “a person who is furnished to you” as used in the definition of temporary worker means a person who is referred from, or provided by, a third party. Because the insured hired the individual directly and not with the aid of a third party, he was not a “temporary worker” within the meaning of the policy, and coverage of his claims against the insured is excluded.

In so holding, the Court of Appeals affirmed Oregon’s rules to interpret the terms of an insurance contract, and confirmed that when determining whether a term is ambiguous the issue is not what a single word in a policy means in the abstract, but what that term most likely was intended to mean when viewed in the context in which the term is used in the policy as a whole.
 

In affirming the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Farmers, the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed the meaning of the products-completed operations hazard in the context of a claim for water intrusion arising from defective construction, in turn affirming a number of key legal concepts in Oregon relating to insurance coverage. As to the exclusion, the court held that the “products-completed operations” hazard unambiguously includes all damages arising away from premises owned or rented by the insured and arising out of the insured’s work, unless one of the exceptions relating to ongoing operations applies. “Your work”, defined to include work done on the insured’s behalf, was interpreted as plainly including work performed on the insured’s behalf by subcontractors. Significantly, the Court of Appeals rejected an argument that the subcontractor exception in the separate “your work” exclusion expressed an intent for the policy as a whole to cover damages caused by the work of subcontractors, holding that an exception to one exclusion does not modify other aspects of the policy. Because the insured presented no evidence as to the timing of the water damage, the insured failed to meets its burden of proof to present any evidence indicating the applicability of the exception for damages taking place during ongoing operations.

In so holding, the Court of Appeals affirmed a number of key concepts. The court confirmed that, under Oregon’s rules for interpretation of insurance contracts, extrinsic evidence is irrelevant to determining the rights and obligations of the parties to an insurance contract, which is based solely on the terms of the policy. The Court further confirmed that the insured bears the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion. Perhaps more significantly, the Court of Appeals held that the insured had the burden to submit proof that the property damage took place during ongoing operations. Although determined in the context of an exception to an exclusion, this holding will likely be useful in asserting that the insured also bears the burden of affirmatively submitting evidence as to the timing of the property damage for purposes of triggering the coverage grant, which is often a significant issue in water intrusion cases. Finally, the Court of Appeals confirmed that insureds cannot attempt to create ambiguity in an insurance contract by presenting evidence of an insurer’s claims handling practices and that the doctrine of waiver does not apply to exclusions in insurance contracts.

While some may criticize Hennessy as a liberal interpretation of “collapse” coverage, see dissenting opinion by Judge Landau (“I respectfully disagree with the majority that what is essentially a crack between a piece of stucco and the building to which it is adhered is a ‘collapse’ of that stucco”), the decision also represents a substantial victory for insurers with respect to the scope of coverage. Specifically, whereas the trial court had awarded the insured $98,859.03 to entirely replace the failed stucco system, the Court of Appeals reduced the award to $2,469.68 to reflect only those costs directly associated with repairing the “collapsed” portion of the stucco. Even though the parties had agreed that it was “reasonable and prudent” to replace all of the stucco that “was no longer attached to the underlying walls,” the court found that no “collapse” had occurred where the stucco was no longer properly adhered to the building but “had not moved or fallen.” Thus, repairs to those areas of the building were not necessitated by any “collapse” but by the hysteresis (grout decay) that had caused the adhesion to fail.

Prior to the Hennessy decision, insureds repeatedly argued in Oregon that once coverage is found the insurer must pay for all work that is necessary to complete the repair job in a “good and workmanlike fashion.” Thus, if, as the parties agreed in Hennessy, it was “reasonable and prudent” to repair all stucco while repairing the portion that had actually separated from the building, the insured would argue that the entire repair project should be covered. Hennessy stands for the proposition that although a broad scope of work may be “reasonable and prudent,” or even required in order for a contractor to complete the job in a workmanlike manner, coverage only extends to those repairs actually necessitated by a covered event. "Logically, this rule should not be limited to "collapse" claims but should extend to all first-party property claims, and potentially even to third-party liability claims. In most cases, a reasoned expert opinion will likely be helpful to properly limit an insured’s recovery pursuant to the Hennessy standard.
 

The central issue was the definition of “occurrence” and how it applied to property damage in construction defect claims. The Court of Appeals first found that the majority rule is that damage to an insured’s own work is not an occurrence because such damage is not unexpected. The Court also followed the corollary to this majority rule that damage to the work of other contractors is considered an occurrence. Based on the facts before it, the Court of Appeals found there was no occurrence because the damage did not extend beyond the work of Foster Frames and its sub-subcontractors. The Court of Appeals ruled that the insurers for the sub-subcontractors did not have a duty to defend because there was no indication in the complaint that “consequential damage” went beyond the work of the sub-subcontractors. To the extent the D.R. Horton complaint alleged damage to other parts of the structure, those damages were wholly unrelated to the work of Foster Frames and there was no allegation connecting Foster Frames’ work to the claimed damage. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that simply because a complaint states generally that there was “consequential damage” there was a duty to defend. The fact that the Court of Appeals considered the work of the subcontractor and its sub-subcontractors to be all the work of the subcontractor for the purposes of whether there was an occurrence may also impact how the definition is applied to general contractors in future cases.

Regence Bluecross successfully argued to the trial court that the claim was barred by the six year statute of limitations, ORS 12.080, because any breach occurred in May of 1999 when the company first changed the amount of its payments. The insured argued on appeal that there were multiple breaches: one for every month when Regence Bluecross paid 50% rather than 80% of the medication costs. While conceding that the statute of limitations barred her claim with respect to deficient payments prior to December of 2000, the insured argued that the statute did not bar her claim with respect to deficient payments after that time. The Court of Appeals agreed with the insured. After acknowledging the general rule that “an insurance contract is breached when benefits are wrongfully denied by the insurer,” the Court ruled that “each wrongful denial of a claim for benefits constitutes a discrete act by the insurer that causes harm to the insured separate from and independent of the injuries caused by the denial of other claims, and accordingly, constitutes a discrete breach of the obligation to pay benefits under the policy.”

The effect of the Pritchard ruling extends beyond the health insurance context. Take, for example, a coverage dispute over pollution clean-up costs. If the insurer denies a claim outright, that denial date should control for purposes of calculating the statute of limitations. Because, as the Pritchard court commented, “an ongoing accrual of economic damages does not extend the statute of limitations to revive a stale claim,” it should not matter if the insured continues tendering new bills related to the same clean-up claim: the original denial date will continue to control. However, if the insurer accepts coverage but disputes the amount that should be paid, there will be a new statute of limitations date for each time the insured tenders an invoice and the insurer pays less than what the insured claims is due. According to the Pritchard court’s reasoning, it would not matter if the insurer clearly stated more than six years ago that it would only pay a certain portion of any invoices submitted. Instead, each disputed payment would trigger a new statute of limitations date.
 

Plaintiff’s primary argument was that the policy was “irremediably ambiguous” because the retroactive date was meaningless to the property at issue, one of 17 properties, because the tanks at that location were installed after the retroactive date. Plaintiff argued this created an ambiguity because there was a potential for coverage based on a leak from before the tanks were installed. Plaintiff argued that because of this ambiguity the policy should be interpreted to cover tanks and prior tanks at a scheduled location so long as the release happened after the retroactive date.

The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Following Oregon’s interpretative rules, the Court found that the policy was not ambiguous. The Court found that Plaintiff’s proposed interpretation was not plausible because it is directly contradictory to policy language that the policy was location and storage tank specific. Since Plaintiff’s proposed interpretation contradicted specific policy language, it was by definition not reasonable.

The Court also rejected an argument that the insurer was barred from taking its position by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Plaintiff argued that because the insurer had taken a contrary position in a case in Alaska, that it should be estopped from asserting that the policy does not apply to older tanks at a scheduled location. The Court found that since the insurer did not prevail in the Alaska case, that judicial estoppel does not apply.
 

MOE responded with a declaratory judgment action arguing, among other things, that no indemnity obligation existed because, as a result of the statute of limitations, the insured was not “legally obligated” to pay anything. Id. at 6. Following a judgment for the insured, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that in the absence of any showing of bad faith, the insurer “should be allowed to litigate to finality whether the statute of limitations had run on the underlying claims.” Id. at 7. The Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that MOE already had a sufficient opportunity to be heard on the statute of limitations defense in the underlying case through an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment, the settlement negotiations and the reasonableness hearing. Id. at 12. The Court wrote that “[w]hen an insurer had an opportunity to be involved in a settlement fixing its insured’s liability, and that settlement is judged reasonable by a judge, then it is appropriate to use the fact of the settlement to establish liability and the amount of the settlement as the presumptive damage award for purposes of coverage.” Id. at 16. The Court held that, regardless of whether or not an insurer acts in good faith, the insurer “is not entitled to litigate factual questions that were resolved in the liability case by judgment or arm’s length settlement.” Id. at 18.

However, that determination did not resolve the extent of MOE’s indemnity obligation because the policy only covered “property damage” as defined and limited by the policy. As the Court correctly noted, “the coverage issue is different from the global damages issue.” Id. at 25. MOE argued that since the majority of the siding was not damaged, it should not be responsible for the cost to remove and replace the siding. Id. at 21. The Court rejected this argument, reasoning that “[r]emoving and repairing the siding is simply part of the cost of repairing the damage to the interior walls.” Id. at 22. Similarly, the Court rejected MOE’s argument that it should not be responsible for the cost of replacing siding because such costs fell within the “impaired property” and “your work” exclusions, concluding that “if the siding must be removed to repair damage” to other components of the building “then there is coverage for the cost of the removal and replacement of the siding.” Id. at 27. On the other hand, the Court found that the record was insufficient to determine the total amount of “property damage” covered by the policy because the settlement could have included amounts attributable to the diminution in value of the entire development “even if there had been no actual property damage to a particular wall.” Id. at 26. In other words, the Court could not tell whether the trial court’s ruling in the coverage action was based on an actual coverage determination or, rather, “merely” upon “the findings of the liability judge that the settlement was reasonable.” Id. at 26. Accordingly, the Court remanded for a closer examination of what damage had actually occurred.

According to the tentative, the court is leaning towards confirming California follows an “all sums” approach to an individual insurer’s liability (once its policy is proven to provide cover) for property damage that continues over many years. The court is also inclined to rule the insured can “stack” the insurance policies. That is, the insured is permitted to stack policies across policy periods. The appellate court opined that FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Cos. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4^th 1132(which held multiple policies’ occurrence limits could not be stacked) was not well-reasoned. While not criticizing the trial court for feeling it was bound by the FMC decision, the appellate court intends (unless persuaded otherwise) to hold FMC was wrong.

On other issues, the appellate court appears inclined to rule for the insurers. The court’s tentative indicates it agrees with the trial court’s finding of only one occurrence and that policy limits for multi-year policies were per occurrence not annual.

Meanwhile, briefing has been completed on other important pollution-coverage issues pending before the California Supreme Court in the Stringfellow case. Before the Supremes are the following issues: (1) Does application of the pollution exclusion clause turn on when waste material was discharged from the Stringfellow Acid Pits waste disposal site or when the waste was initially deposited into the site? (2) If pollution is caused by both uncovered intentional actions and covered accidents, does the insured have the burden at trial to prove that all of the damages it seeks to recover were caused by a covered event, or is there a duty to indemnify when two concurrent causes are responsible for an injury even if one of the causes is an uncovered act?

The Court of Appeal had rejected the insurers' contention, based on Standun, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 882, that the relevant release for purposes of applying the "sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion was the deposit of waste into the site. The Court distinguished Standun because the insured in Standun was held strictly liable as a waste generator that purposefully and regularly disposed of waste at the site.  Here, the court held, the State's liability for the negligent design, construction and operation of the Stringfellow Site shifted the focus from the initial deposit to subsequent releases from the site.

The Court of Appeal also concluded Golden Eagle Refinery Co. v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1300 and Lockheed Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 184 are incompatible with the California Supreme Court's decision in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94. The court held, applying Partridge, that the State would be entitled to full coverage even if damage was partially caused by an excluded event and the damage was indivisible.

We will report further as these courts issue final rulings on the various aspects of the case.

In remanding for a new trial, the Court of Appeals also commented on several other issues, including that the definition of “fixed and moveable things” in a protection and indemnity policy does not include soil and river sediment.  The Court declined, however, to comment on allocation.  On cross-appeal, Zidell argued that the court applied the wrong allocation method based on Oregon statute and the Court’s decision in Cascade Corp. v. American Home Ins. Co., 206 Or. App. 1 (2006). The Court of Appeals declined to address the argument, waiting to see if it returned after remand. The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court’s decision that led to the award of declaratory judgment attorney fees to Zidell.

The California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District [Los Angeles]) in 2007 ruled that Truck Insurance Exchange was wrong in asserting that its payment of claims had exhausted its policies’ occurrence limits because, the court held, the occurrence under Truck’s policies was the injurious exposure to asbestos, not the manufacture and distribution of products containing asbestos. London Market Insurers v. Superior Court (Truck Ins. Exchg.) (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 648 (review denied). Truck’s position had been that all asbestos-related claims in any given year arose from a single occurrence because all the claims had the same underlying cause, i.e., “the design, manufacture and distribution by Kaiser and its subsidiaries of asbestos-bearing products.” The appellate court also concluded that, given its ruling, it could not make a decision on the number of occurrences based on the record before it and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

On remand, the trial court held that, based on the policies’ language and in light of the stipulated facts, Truck failed to prove the claims could be aggregated and, thus, each claim of asbestos bodily injury was a separate and distinct occurrence under Truck's 19 policies.

Truck’s policies had two different occurrence definitions and aggregating clauses. From 1964 to 1974 the policies had a “one lot” clause which provided that “all damages arising out of one prepared or acquired lot of goods or products” arose out of one occurrence. Truck argued that under this provision, claims from exposure to products produced at the same manufacturing facility should be deemed one occurrence. Based on the appellate court’s decision, the trial court held the focus had to be on the exposure rather than the manufacturing process. Truck had stipulated that the number of product lines was not known and that individual claims could not be connected with particular product lines. Therefore, Truck failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the “one lot” clause aggregated particular claims.

From 1974 to 1983, the Truck policies had a “premises deemer” clause which provided that exposure to substantially the same general conditions “at or emanating from each premises location” was one occurrence. Truck argued all claims were one occurrence as they arose from exposure to products produced at the same Kaiser manufacturing facility or, alternatively, because them were due to the same corporate decision (or multiple corporate decisions from the same location) to place asbestos in products.  The trial court was not persuaded. Relying on Judge Ira Brown’s decisions from the coordinated asbestos proceedings in 1990, the court held that the premises location in a deemer clause could not refer to the plant from which the products were shipped or distributed since that is not where the exposure to asbestos occurred. Furthermore, Truck stipulated that it could not connect the claimant’s injuries to a particular plant. As to the corporate decision argument, the appellate court already decided that was not the correct focus, since it was not the exposure to asbestos. Besides, there was no evidence of one decision to incorporate asbestos into all Kaiser products.