-
August 21, 2026
CHICAGO — A federal judge dismissed the claims a contractor’s insurer brought against a subcontractor’s insurers over coverage in an underlying construction defect suit, finding that the subcontractor’s policies’ self-insured retention (SIR) endorsements relieved the insurers of a duty to defend any insured under the policies.
-
August 21, 2026
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A construction company filed a response to objections to the recommendation of a federal magistrate judge in Florida that the company’s breach of contract claim against an insurer should not be dismissed, arguing that the magistrate judge’s reasoning and analysis are sound and that the relevant Florida statute does not apply because the assignment of insurance benefits at issue clearly assigned the benefits to the construction company.
-
August 21, 2026
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appellate panel affirmed summary judgment for an insurer, finding that a condominium building owner was not an additional insured under its general contractor’s liability policies and, therefore, was not entitled to coverage for an underlying construction defect suit brought by a condominium unit owner.
-
August 21, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — Insurers argue that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should affirm a lower court’s order granting their motion for summary judgment against a construction manager, contending that summary judgment was proper because the policy’s course of construction exclusion (COCE) precluded coverage for the construction manager’s liability in an underlying lawsuit.
-
August 21, 2026
TAMPA, Fla. — An insurer asked a Florida federal court to adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the insurer had no duty to defend a concrete paver manufacturer in an underlying dispute over defective pavers at an RV park, agreeing with the magistrate judge that the defective pavers did not cause physical injury to other tangible property.
-
August 21, 2026
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York found that an insurer owed a piping contractor a duty to defend against an underlying action regarding damage due to leaking pipes the contractor installed at three properties because damage to one of the properties occurred during the policy period, but that it was premature to determine whether the insurer had a duty to indemnify the contractor because the underlying action has not yet been resolved and it is possible that a policy exclusion could preclude the duty to indemnify.
-
August 21, 2026
NEW YORK — A developer’s insurer and a subcontractor’s insurer filed a stipulation to dismiss after reaching a settlement in a case brought by the developer’s insurer regarding coverage in an underlying case alleging that the subcontractor’s work may have contributed to water damage in a mixed-use building.
-
August 20, 2026
LOS ANGELES — After a federal judge in California denied its amended renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), an insurer appealed the opinion to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The case against the insurer was brought regarding coverage for damage to an apartment building that occurred when the building was being reroofed, and the insurer failed to persuade the judge that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict awarding the building owner damages.
-
August 20, 2026
BOISE, Idaho — After an apartment building owner’s insurer and an architect agreed to dismiss all the claims the insurer asserted against the architect in a suit stemming from a fire-suppression water line freezing and bursting, a federal judge in Idaho issued an order granting the stipulation of dismissal.
-
August 20, 2026
FRESNO, Calif. — An excess insurer and a general contractor filed a notice of settlement in federal court in California on Aug. 19, notifying the court that they have settled the insurer’s action against the general contractor for reimbursement of funds it paid to settle an underlying construction defect action.
-
August 20, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer that was granted summary judgment in its case against a concrete supplier seeking a declaration that it did not have a duty to indemnify the supplier in an underlying action over defective concrete filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment to add prejudgment interest, arguing that it is entitled to interest from the date the insurer made payment toward a settlement of the underlying action on behalf of the concrete supplier.
-
August 20, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California granted an insurer’s unopposed motion for summary judgment on its claims against its paint contractor insured in the insurer’s suit seeking a declaration that it did not have a duty to defend and indemnify the contractor or others in underlying actions stemming from a fire that damaged property in San Francisco.
-
August 20, 2026
PRESCOTT, Ariz. — After the parties to a coverage action regarding water intrusion stemming from defective construction work that caused damage to an apartment complex reached a settlement, a federal judge in Arizona issued a conditional dismissal order.
-
August 19, 2026
FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — A Virginia Court of Appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s judgment in favor of an insurer, finding that because a construction manager failed to timely notify the insurer about a property owner’s counterclaim against it for alleged defects in the building of a museum, the construction manager was not owed coverage.
-
August 10, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel remanded for further explanation a federal judge in Texas’ grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a builder’s suit seeking indemnification for an arbitration award for damages caused by construction defects in a home the builder built, finding that the judge had not provided a sufficient explanation for the basis of his ruling.
-
August 05, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — A Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that a lower court was right to grant summary judgment in favor of an insurance carrier and its claims administrator on a general contractor’s claims seeking damages under West Virginia’s Hayseeds doctrine — which allows insured who substantially prevail against their insurers to recover attorney fees and other consequential damages — and for statutory bad faith arising from the insurer’s handling of a construction defect coverage dispute, holding that no reasonable jury would find in the contractor’s favor.
-
August 03, 2026
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A federal judge in Kentucky denied a subcontractor’s motion for reconsideration of an order granting summary judgment to an insurer as to the subcontractor’s counterclaims for breach of contract, bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that the subcontractor simply reasserted arguments the court had already rejected in ruling that a global settlement agreement over defective work on a student housing project required dismissal of its remaining counterclaims.
-
July 24, 2026
TAMPA, Fla. — In addressing cross-motions for summary judgment, a federal magistrate judge in Florida held that because defective concrete pavers at an RV park did not cause injury to other tangible property, an insurer had no duty to defend a concrete paver company in an underlying dispute brought against it over the defective pavers.
-
July 24, 2026
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A federal magistrate judge recommended that a construction company’s breach of contract claim against an insurer should not be dismissed because it involves payment for work already performed under an assignment of insurance benefits that was entered into years after the work was completed.
-
July 24, 2026
MIAMI — A design-build contractor filed objections to the report and recommendation of a a federal magistrate judge in Florida, agreeing that its excess insurers’ motion to dismiss the contractor’s breach of contract complaint over coverage for faulty bridge design calculations should be denied but arguing that the parties should not be compelled to participate in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process required by the lead excess insurance policy’s limitation of liability endorsement before proceeding with litigation.
-
July 24, 2026
CINCINNATI — After removing from an amended opinion its holding that insurers must show prejudice from an insured’s failure to comply with a preloss coverage condition, a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel dismissed as moot the insurers’ petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in a builder’s risk coverage dispute over a fire that burned down a building during renovations.
-
July 24, 2026
LOS ANGELES — After an insurer and interior designer announced that they had reached a settlement, a federal judge in California issued an order of dismissal in the insurer’s case seeking a declaration that it did not owe the interior designer a defense in an underlying action brought against the designer for negligence alleging that the designer’s improper selection of materials resulted in property damage.
-
July 24, 2026
SCRANTON, Pa. — An insurer argued in a reply supporting its second motion for summary judgment that a federal court in Pennsylvania’s earlier ruling in a water damage coverage dispute did not address the policy’s suit requirement or the applicability of policy exclusions. The case was brought by a modular apartment unit manufacturer for water damage allegedly caused by its subcontractor’s work.
-
July 24, 2026
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois dismissed with prejudice an insurer’s third-party complaint against another insurer seeking equitable subrogation in a case brought by a developer seeking coverage for an underlying case against it alleging that construction defects resulted in water damage to a residential townhome project.
-
July 24, 2026
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A general contractor and an insurer filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the contractor’s complaint against the insurer for breach of contract over the insurer’s denial of the contractor’s claims for coverage and a defense in homeowners’ underlying suit against it alleging that their home incurred water intrusion.