Insights
Publications

State Appeals Courts Rule on ‘That Particular Part’ Exclusions

11/27/2017 Articles

Two recent cases from separate California state courts correctly interpret the phrase “that particular part” and apply it in its intended narrow sense. This is good news for contractors and is in contrast to some recent decisions by federal courts.

In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemn. Co., 14 Cal. App. 5th 1086, (2017), American Safety Indemn. Co. (ASIC) denied a defense to general contractor Pulte under several policies it had issued to three subcontractors who worked on two projects, both of which led to construction defect lawsuits against Pulte and the subcontractors. Pulte claimed coverage for the defense of the suits under additional insured endorsements attached to each of the policies.

“That Particular Part” Exclusions

ASIC denied on multiple grounds, including that there was no potential for coverage under the subcontractors’ policies based on exclusions j(5) and j(6) – the “that particular part” exclusions. ASIC argued that under California law, the entire project is considered a general contractor’s “work.”

The court noted that “the problem with [ASIC’s] exclusionary arguments is that the record does not contain a showing by the insurer that all of the damage the homeowners were claiming was limited to the particular location where one or another of the subcontractors was performing their work, such that these policy exclusions would clearly apply.” Id. (emphasis added). Although insurance industry materials reveal that the these exclusions were to be intended narrowly, the court simply relied on the plain meaning and dictionary definitions of their words. For example, in discussing exclusion j(6), the court noted that “there was no reliable way shown of determining . . . which subcontractors’ work had been substandard or whether it had damaged its own or another’s adjacent work.” The court’s distinction between a subcontractor’s work and “adjacent work” shows the court correctly applied the words “that particular part” narrowly. 1

In Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., 2017 WL 3948229 (2017), the insurer (North American Capacity Ins. Co.) (NACIC) denied coverage for rain damage to modular buildings because of delays in delivery of the units, and upon which temporary roofing had to be installed, which leaked. NACIC insured Global Modular (Global), who caused the delays and who installed the temporary roofs. Kadena refused to pay Global for its work, and Global then sued Kadena. Global was found liable for the damage.

NACIC then filed a declaratory relief action and argued that exclusion j(5) (which excludes “that particular part or real property on which you . . . are performing operations”) applied because the project was not complete when the damage occurred. However, the court held that the phrase “are performing operations” applies only to damage caused during physical construction activities. While again not specifically referring to industry materials, the court noted that had “the policy drafters intended the exclusion to apply more broadly to damage to any of the insured’s work in progress, we would expect the provision to say something along the lines of ‘property damage to that particular part of real property on which your operations are not yet complete’ or even ‘property damage to your work arising out of your operations.’” The court went on to note that the drafters of the policy used such broad language in other exclusions in the policy.

NACIC’s Argument Rejected

In discussing exclusion j(6), the court rejected NACIC’s argument that the entire modular buildings themselves were the “particular part” being worked on when installing the temporary roof. (Exclusion j(6) excludes coverage for “that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.”) Holding that the exclusion only applies to the specific part of the insured’s work on which the insured performed faulty workmanship, the court noted that had the drafters intended the exclusion to apply to the general area of the construction project affected by the insured’s faulty work, they would have left out the prepositional phrase “on it” so that the exclusion would read “that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed.”

It is encouraging to see California appellate courts studying the meaning of the actual policy language, and not simply accepting insurers’ broad brush straw-man arguments about what CGL policies are, or are not, intended to cover. By comparing the actual language of exclusions against each other and comprehending what each one was intended to exclude, the Global Modular and Pulte Home courts realized that each exclusion had a specific intent, and the terms of one exclusion could not be imparted to another exclusion, nor could they all be “mushed together” to make one large, catch-all type exclusion. [1]

Tyler Gerking is a partner in Farella Braun + Martel’s San Francisco office, where his litigation practice focuses on recovering insurance policy proceeds for policyholders. He can be reached at [email protected]. David Smith is an insurance and risk management consultant in Farella’s San Francisco office. He can be reached at [email protected].

___________________________

1 In a strange quirk of timing, a sister case, Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemn. Co., No. 16-cv-02567- H-AGS (USDC, Southern Dist. Cal.) was filed at the same time, involving a third project involving the same parties. That case, though, was filed in federal court and ACIC successfully argued that Georgia law governed the dispute. After only a superficial review of the facts and the policy language, the district court (in an opinion filed two weeks after the California court of appeal opinion above was filed) held that exclusions j(5) and j(6) applied broadly to the project, even describing them as “broad” exclusions. As the California court of appeal showed, however, these exclusions are actually narrow because they only apply to “that particular part” of the project on which the insured is actually performing work at the time of the damage.

Firm Highlights

Publication

What You Need To Know About Representation and Warranty Insurance

The allocation of post-transaction risk is a key area where bids for assets can differentiate themselves. And representation and warranty insurance is a great arrow to have in your quiver, whether you are a seasoned...

Read More
Publication

Caught in the Crossfire — How will the war exclusion affect commercial policyholders?

The war exclusion has received a lot of attention over the past year, particularly since Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Policyholders’ concern that insurers will assert the exclusion as a basis to deny coverage...

Read More
News

2022 Cannabis Insurance Market Update

Tyler Gerking was quoted in  PropertyCasualty360 's article "2022 Cannabis Insurance Market Update."  Read the full article here (subscription required). Watch the webinar "Cyber Insurance for the Cannabis Industry" here .

Read More
Publication

Continuing Use of CGL Policies to Cover Data Breach Losses

Our lives and the products and devices we use become more dependent on data by the day. As a result, cyberattacks and data breaches present everchanging risks to companies and individuals, and the importance...

Read More
Publication

Are Communications With Your Insurance Broker Privileged Under New York Law?

Discussions with an insured’s insurance broker are often an important part of the negotiation process for insurance claims. Brokers can provide valuable insights on the drafting and underwriting of the insurance policy as well...

Read More
News

Farella Attorneys Named to 2022 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thirty-four Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2022. Super Lawyers: Carly Alameda – Business Litigation George Argyris &ndash...

Read More
News

Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes Farella Braun + Martel Lawyers, Practices

Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce that Chambers USA has recognized 14 lawyers and 6 practice areas in the legal directory’s 2022 edition. Individual California and Western U.S. Rankings: Sarah Bell &ndash...

Read More
News

Legal Experts Say Opioid Coverage Disputes Far From Over

Shanti Eagle was quoted in Law360 's article "Legal Experts Say Opioid Coverage Disputes Far From Over."  Read the article here (subscription required).

Read More
Publication

Using Multi-Factor Authentication as a Prerequisite to Cyber Liability Coverage

Multi-factor authentication (MFA) is more than an annoying popup or text message when logging onto a company’s website or platform. Not only is using MFA a sound security practice and good business, it is frequently...

Read More
Publication

Maximizing Your Insurance Coverage for Data Privacy Liability

With news of massive data breaches making headlines in recent years, the handling of personal data has become a focus for legislators and regulators around the world. Compliance with data privacy regulations such as the...

Read More