Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

New York Insurance Law: Under Construction

By Seth Schafler & Om V. Alladi on March 30, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Imagine you hired a general contractor to renovate the master bathroom of your home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to do the plumbing work, but the subcontractor botched the job, resulting in a massive leak causing extensive damage to other areas of your home and valuable personal property. You demand full compensation for the loss, but unfortunately the contractors you hired had no assets besides their comprehensive general liability insurance policies.

Will those insurance policies cover this loss? 

Until now, New York courts may well have answered this question in the negative, because they did not consider a subcontractor’s defective workmanship to qualify as an “occurrence” under CGL policies. But that view may be changing.

Recently, a number of cases in courts around the country have taken a fresh look at coverage in this scenario and reached the opposite conclusion. In 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court changed its previous position and decided that under current CGL policies, damages caused by a subcontractor are a covered “occurrence” and therefore insurable.

More recently, in February 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying New York law, predicted that if the question were presented today, New York would find a potential for coverage even though prior intermediate appellate decisions in New York went the other way.

The issue in the Tenth Circuit case was whether a general contractor could recover for property damage caused by their subcontractor’s faulty installation of a component in a coal-fired power plant. The contractor settled claims brought by the owner for $225 million, and sued its CGL carrier for coverage. The insurers argued that subcontractor-caused damage was not an “occurrence” under New York law, but the contractor argued that position was outdated.

Although the insurers convinced a district court judge to dismiss the case based on prior New York authority, the Tenth Circuit reversed, predicting that the New York Court of Appeals would find coverage if the question were presented today. The Tenth Circuit reached this conclusion based on a comprehensive study of changes in the CGL policy, which showed that the policy form had been modified specifically to recognize coverage for damages caused by a subcontractor’s defective construction work, and that it would be contrary to the intent of the policy to deny coverage due to the absence of an “occurrence.”

It is too soon to tell whether the Tenth Circuit’s prediction will prove correct. But its decision follows a trend of court decisions over the past several years which have found coverage in these circumstances. In addition, recent decisions of New York’s highest court have focused on the precise policy wording and insisted that effect be given to every provision in an insurance contract, in line with the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning.

This is not the last we will hear from the courts on this evolving issue. Stay tuned for further developments. In the meantime, however, New York policyholders should not assume that there is no coverage for property damage caused by a subcontractor under a CGL policy and should take appropriate action to preserve coverage such as giving timely notice of occurrences or claims and assessing their litigation options.

Photo of Seth Schafler Seth Schafler

Seth B. Schafler is a partner in the Insurance Recovery & Counseling Group. He has extensive experience representing policyholders in coverage negotiations and disputes with their insurance companies, and litigating coverage issues in federal and state courts across the country.

Seth’s experience covers…

Seth B. Schafler is a partner in the Insurance Recovery & Counseling Group. He has extensive experience representing policyholders in coverage negotiations and disputes with their insurance companies, and litigating coverage issues in federal and state courts across the country.

Seth’s experience covers a wide variety of insurance products including commercial general liability, directors and officers, professional liability, errors and omissions, fiduciary liability, property, business interruption, fidelity, marine and credit risk insurance, among others.

Read more about Seth SchaflerEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Om V. Alladi Om V. Alladi

Om Alladi is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Product Liability practice. Om’s practice encompasses a broad range of complex commercial litigation matters, including product liability defense, class action defense, contract disputes, and insurance recovery actions. He has…

Om Alladi is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Product Liability practice. Om’s practice encompasses a broad range of complex commercial litigation matters, including product liability defense, class action defense, contract disputes, and insurance recovery actions. He has represented clients in a variety of industries in state and federal courts across the United States.

Om has experience with every stage of litigation, including drafting dispositive motions, taking depositions, preparing witnesses for deposition and trial, and securing favorable outcomes at trial. Om has also been involved in preparing a diverse array of trial memoranda, from cross and direct examinations, to opening and closing statements. Most recently, Om was part of a trial team representing Monsanto in a high-profile product liability case that was resolved with a full defense verdict on all claims.

Read more about Om V. AlladiEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Insurance
  • Blog:
    Risk and Recovery
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Beyond the First 100 Days
  • In the Legal Interest
  • Cooking with SALT
  • The Fiduciary Litigator
  • CCN Mexico Report™
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo