Construction Law

Builder's Risk Policy Does Not Cover Damage to City Sewer Pipe

Plaintiff WHP9, the developer of a multi-building residential project in North Bergen, secured a builder?s risk policy from defendant Centennial Insurance and liability insurance from another carrier before beginning construction. WHP 9, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Company, A-1454-06T1 (App. Div. October 23, 2007). Plaintiff?s application for the builder?s risk coverage stated the development?s value when complete as $6 million, without reporting the municipality?s sewer pipe or its cost in any way.

While driving piles for footings, a subcontractor punctured a 36-inch cast iron sewer line that ran beneath the property. The damage was discovered in 2002, and the municipality issued a stop work order in March 2003. Plaintiff?s liability insurer defended plaintiff in the municipality?s damage suit, ultimately settling with the municipality.

Asa a result of the stoppage, Plaintiff incurred lost rental income and other expenses exceeding $3 million. Defendant denied coverage under the builder?s risk policy, maintaining that the sewer pipe was not covered property within the policy?s terms:

Covered property means your property or the property of others for which you are liable, consisting of

a. Buildings or structures as described in this Coverage Form Declarations while under construction, erection, or fabrication, including the cost of foundations and underground property such as pipes, flues, drains, electrical wires, piers, and pilings; and excavation, grading, and filling; if such costs are included in the completed value of the project.

But this does not include existing buildings or structures to which improvements, alterations, repairs or additions are being made.

Plaintiff contended that the sewer pipe was covered as ?property of others for which you are liable.? The trial court disagreed, and the Appellate Division affirmed, noting that the sewer pipe was not declared as property under construction, erection or fabrication and that the policy explicitly excluded coverage for ?existing . . . structures to which . . . alterations, repairs or additions are being made . . . . ? Finding the policy language to be clear and unambiguous, and within an insured?s reasonable expectations, the appellate court confirmed the trial court?s denial of coverage.

Full post as published by Construction Litigation Law Blog on October 23, 2007 (boomark / email).