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.

Changes to Physician Assistant Statutes in Florida

In the last year, there have been many changes to the scope of practice and collaboration/supervision requirements for advanced practice providers such as APRNs and physician assistants in the state of Florida. In a previous Client Alert we discussed House Bill 607, which expanded the autonomous practice of APRNs providing primary care services in Florida.

Ohio Senate Bill 49 – Ohio Expands Lien Rights for Design Professionals

Effective September 30, 2021, Ohio granted limited lien rights to design professionals, including architects, landscape architects, engineers, and surveyors. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 49 into law on July 1, 2021. This new law established a statutory right to lien commercial real estate by Ohio design professionals who, until now, could not file a lien for non-payment of professional services. Senator Vernon Sykes, a primary sponsor of Senate Bill 49, stated that the “legislation ensures that architects, engineers and other designers will get paid for their work, regardless of the outcome of their projects . . . It will support hardworking Ohioans by protecting the value of their labor . . ..”

Primary Care Practice Officially Defined in Florida for APRNs Practicing Autonomously

As many providers in Florida are aware, House Bill 607 (the “Bill”), which was passed in February of last year, gives certain APRNs in Florida the ability to practice autonomously. The only catch is that they must work in primary practice. When the Bill was initially passed, there was question as to what was exactly considered primary care, absent a definition from the Florida Board of Nursing. However, as of February 25, 2021, “primary care practice” has officially been defined.

Part II of the No Surprises Act

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) published Part II of the No Surprises Act on September 30, 2021, which will take effect on January 1, 2022. The new guidance, in large part, focuses on the independent dispute resolution process that was briefly mentioned in Part I of the Act. In addition, there is now guidance on good faith estimate requirements, the patient-provider dispute resolution processes, and added external review provisions.

Safer Federal Workforce Task Force - Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors

The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force has issued its Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors (Guidance). Note that the Guidance applies only to “covered contracts,” which are contracts that include the clause (Clause) set forth in Sec. 2(a) of Executive Order 14042 (Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors). The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FARC) is to conduct rulemaking and take related action to ensure that the Clause is incorporated into federal contracts. Until that happens, federal contractors likely will not see the Clause in its contracts. Following is a broad summary of the Guidance.