Client Alerts, News Articles & Blog Posts

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CLIENT ALERT: Ohio Supreme Court Rules that a Subcontractor's Construction Defects are Not a Covered "Occurrence" Under a CGL Policy

Although a growing number of states have held that CGL policies provide coverage for damages caused by the defective work of subcontractors, the Ohio Supreme Court has refused to join the national trend. In Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs., Inc., 2018-Ohio-4057, the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is not a covered “occurrence” under a typical CGL policy.

Defective workmanship claims by contractors are frequently challenged by insurers on the grounds that the cost of repairs to defective work is not “property damage” resulting from a covered “occurrence.” Ohio construction companies who relied on their commercial general liability (CGL) policies to cover claims of defective workmanship were forced to reevaluate their exposure after the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Westfield Insurance Company v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 476, 2012-Ohio-4712. Westfield presented the question of whether claims of defective construction and workmanship are covered claims for “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. Responding in the negative, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a CGL policy does not provide coverage to a contractor for its alleged defective workmanship on a project when the underlying defect giving rise to the damages in question is not accidental. An important concept underscored by the Court’s opinion in Westfield was that a CGL policy does not insure a contractor’s work itself; rather, it only covers the consequential risks that stem from that work. While a CGL may still cover these consequential risks, Westfield clarified that covered risks must result from an accidental “occurrence” and not from defective construction or workmanship that is within a contractor’s control. 

In Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs, Inc., 2017-Ohio-258, the Third Appellate District reversed and remanded a judgment of a trial court which had relied on Westfield to deny coverage for defective workmanship performed by a subcontractor. The Court looked to specific exclusionary language to analyze the policy as a whole and disagreed with the insurer’s position that Westfield stood “for the expansive proposition that all claims for defective workmanship, regardless of who performed it, are barred from coverage under a CGL Policy because such claims can never constitute an ‘occurrence.’”  The Court proceeded to analyze the entire policy, including the various coverage exclusions, to determine if any applied to eliminate coverage for an “occurrence” of defective work. The Court found that the “Your Work” exclusion expressly precluded coverage for “property damage” to work or operations performed by a contractor or on the contractor’s behalf. However, although the “Your Work” exclusion appeared to exclude coverage for all  defective workmanship on its face, the Court noted that the exclusion contained an exception stating that the exclusion would not apply if the damages arose out of work performed on the contractor’s behalf by a subcontractor. Therefore, the Third Appellate District reasoned that this “subcontractor exception” to the “Your Work” exclusion could be applied to provide coverage under a CGL policy for the cost of repairs to defective work performed by a subcontractor.

The Ohio Supreme Court has now rejected this analysis by the Third Appellate District and reaffirmed its prior holding in Westfield that defective work does not constitute an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. This is true now even where policy language, such as the “subcontractor exception” to the “Your Work” exclusion, may appear to apply to the cost of repairs to defective work performed by a subcontractor.

Contractors should consult experienced legal counsel to assess their exposure and to develop appropriate risk management strategies to address gaps in their insurance coverage.  If you have any questions about this, or other matters affecting your business, do not hesitate to contact Martin Pangrace, Partner in BMD's Construction Group at (216) 658-2324 or mjpangrace@bmdllc.com.

CLIENT ALERT: CMS Unveils New Price Transparency Rules

On November 15th, the Trump administration put forth two long-anticipated rules that increase price transparency for both hospitals and insurers. These rules are a step toward price transparency across the health care industry and are in furtherance of the Trump administration’s goal of empowering healthcare consumers. The finalized rule and the proposed rule strive to make pricing information more available to healthcare consumers so they can make informed health care decisions. Through price transparency, consumers should expect to see a reduction in healthcare costs in the future. In order to provide hospitals enough time for compliance with the new requirements, the effective date of the finalized rule is January 1, 2021. The comment period for the proposed rule is open until January 14, 2020.

CLIENT ALERT: IRS Announces 401(k) and HSA Contribution Limits for 2020

With 2020 just around the corner, the IRS announced important information for the upcoming year for both 401(k) Contributions and Health Saving Accounts (HSAs).

CLIENT ALERT: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division Sets Enforcement Record

In advance of Halloween, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the results of its Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) recovery efforts for Fiscal Year 2019, and it reads like a horror story. The good news to lull you into a feeling of safety was that the 18,844 Complaints Registered was the fewest amount over the past 22 years or published records.

CLIENT ALERT: Will Ohio Recognize a Biddle Claim in a Post-HIPAA World?

OHIO SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR CASE INVOLVING CLASS ACTION FOR ALLEGED HIPAA VIOLATIONS: Will Ohio Recognize a Biddle Claim in a Post-HIPAA World?

CLIENT ALERT: Proposed New Rules to both the Stark Law and the Anti-Kickback Statute

On October 9, 2019, as part of the “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinate Care,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), along with the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), proposed new rules to both the physician self-referral law (“Stark Law”) and the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”). Rule changes are aimed at fostering innovative arrangements for coordinating care consistent with a shift to a value-based system. Both proposed rules are expected to be published to the Federal Register on October 17, 2019. Public comments are due 75 days after publication.