HOWLAND, HESS, GUINAN, TORPEY, CASSIDY, O'CONNELL & BIRNBAUM, LLP
215-947-6240
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Business & Corporate Law
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Construction Law & Litigation
    • Criminal Defense >
      • License Suspension
      • D.U.I. >
        • General Information
        • Blood Alcohol Content
        • Little Known Facts
        • Penalties
    • Elder Law
    • Estate Administration, Litigation & Will Contests
    • Family Law >
      • Custody and Visitation
      • Child Support
      • Spousal Support/Alimony
      • Divorce and Equitable Distribution
    • Personal Injury
    • Real Estate, Zoning & Land Use
    • Wills & Trusts, Estate & Tax Planning
    • Worker's Compensation
  • About Our Firm
  • Our Attorneys
    • David W. Birnbaum
    • Michael W. Cassidy
    • Thomas M. Guinan
    • Bruce D. Hess
    • John R. Howland
    • Dennis R. Meakim
    • George P. O'Connell
    • Richard I. Torpey
    • Remembering Robert G. Hess
    • Our Personnel
  • Client Resources
    • Blog
    • News & Events
  • Contact Us

Subcontractor’s Insurer Not Required to Defend General Contractor for General Contractor’s own Negligence

11/5/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
In a recent decision issued in the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas, and reported in the September 15, 2015 edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Vol. XXXIII, No. 37, p. 38PLW854), it was ruled that a subcontractor’s agreement to obtain liability insurance to protect a general contractor from claims caused [in whole or in part] by the subcontractor does not require the subcontractor’s insurer to defend the general contractor against a claim alleging injuries from negligence caused by the general contractor.


The underlying facts of the case are as follows: an employee of the subcontractor was injured while working on a project in Carbon County. The employee and his wife sued the general contractor, not the subcontractor. The plaintiffs’ complaint contained numerous allegations of negligence, but solely alleged this negligence on the part of the general contractor. Despite being the sole defendant named, the general contractor-defendant tendered the defense of the plaintiff’s claim to the subcontractor’s insurer. The insurer denied coverage, at which time the general contractor filed a third-party complaint against the subcontractor for breach of contract for failing to provide adequate coverage.

In reaching his decision, Common Pleas President Judge Roger N. Nanovic relied on a plain meaning interpretation of the insurance provisions and agreement between the general contractor and subcontractor. In so doing, Judge Nanovic ruled that the subcontractor’s insurer was not responsible for defending a claim alleging negligence solely by the general contractor and that the subcontractor did not breach its contract by failing to protect the general contractor. Although it was true that the general contractor was an additional assured under the subcontractor’s policy, the Court found that the general contractor was essentially a qualified additional assured.

The Court ruled, based on the policy, that in order for the general contractor to be recognized as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy, the injuries alleged by the plaintiff must have been caused by the subcontractor’s own negligence. Since the only negligence alleged here was on the part of the general contractor, the insurer was correct in denying coverage. Furthermore, the Court ruled the subcontractor did not breach its contract with the general contractor because it complied with the agreement of defending the general contractor for injuries caused by the subcontractor. Requiring the subcontractor to cover for the negligence of the general contractor requires more specificity, absent in that policy and not called for in the agreement between the two parties at issue.

So if you’re a contractor or subcontractor, what does this mean for you? It means the language included (or, if you’re like the general contractor above, not included) can mean the difference between whose insurance is on the hook for claims arising in the general contractor-subcontractor setting. The legal team at Howland Hess O’Connell has extensive experience in transactional and litigation work in the field of Construction Law. If you’re a general contractor or subcontractor in need of legal advice or a review of your current insurance policies, schedule a consultation with Thomas Guinan, Karen Angelucci, or  John Howland today to find out how you can best protect yourself in light of this recent court holding.

Legal Disclaimer: The contents of this website are intended solely for informational purposes. They neither constitute nor imply an official legal opinion on behalf of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy and O’Connell nor do they establish an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Howland Hess O’Connell encourages all readers to seek and consult professional counsel before acting upon the information contained on this site.

0 Comments

    Categories

    All
    About Howland Hess O'Connell
    About Us
    Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition
    Act 33
    Age
    Anti-Texting Law
    Arbitration
    ARD
    Ban The Box
    Business
    Business Entity Sued
    Business Law
    Civil
    Color
    Contract Law
    Contractor Subcontractor
    Corporate Law
    Criminal Defense
    Criminal Law
    Criminal Records
    Drowsy Driving
    DUI
    DUI Checkpoint
    DUI Crackdown
    Education Law
    Elder Law
    Employee
    Employer
    Employment Discrimination
    Employment Law
    Environmental Protection
    Estate Planning
    Expungement
    First Time Offender
    Howland Hess O'Connell
    Identity Theft
    Ignition Interlock System
    License Suspension
    Local News
    Motor Vehicle
    Motor Vehicle Accident
    National Origin
    Neighbor Disputes
    Operation Orange Squeeze
    Penndot
    Pennsylvania DUI
    Power Of Attorney
    Property Law
    Race
    Real Estate Transaction
    Religion
    Sealing
    Sex
    Social Security
    Social Security Disability
    SSDI
    Traffic Violation
    Underage Drinking
    Underage DUI
    Workers' Compensation

    RSS Feed

The law office of Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy, O'Connell & Birnbaum, LLP is located in Huntingdon Valley, Southeastern Pennsylvania, and serves clients in Bucks County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County and Philadelphia County, including the towns of: Abington, Ambler, Blue Bell, Cheltenham, Conshohocken, Doylestown, Elkins Park, Glenside, Hatboro, Hilltown, Horsham, Huntingdon Valley, Jenkintown, King of Prussia, Lansdale Springfield, Montgomeryville, New Britain, Norristown, Plymouth Meeting, Upper Dublin, Upper Moreland, Warminster, Warrington and Willow Grove.

The attorneys at Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy, O'Connell & Birnbaum, LLP also serve clients throughout Southern New Jersey including Atlantic County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Gloucester County, and Salem County.

Practice Areas

Business & Corporate Law
Commercial Litigation
Construction Law & Litigation​
Criminal Defense
D.U.I.
Elder Law
Estate Administration, Litigation and Will Contests
Family Law
License Suspension
Personal Injury
Real Estate, Zoning & Land Use
Wills & Trusts, Estate & Tax Planning
Worker's Compensation

Sitemap

Home
Practice Areas
About Our Firm
Our Attorneys
Resources
News & Events
Contact Us

Contact Us

Contact us Today!

Connect with Us

Our Attorneys

David W. Birnbaum
Michael W. Cassidy
Thomas M. Guinan
Bruce D. Hess
John R. Howland
Dennis R. Meakim
George P. O'Connell
Richard I. Torpey
Remembering Robert G. Hess

Find Us - Directions

Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy, O'Connell & Birnbaum, LLP.
2444 Huntingdon Pike
Bethayres, PA 19006

Phone: 215-947-6240
Fax: 215-947-6254

info@howlandhess.com
Howland, Hess, Guinan, Torpey, Cassidy, O'Connell & Birnbaum, LLP. All rights reserved. Review our disclaimer.
Powered by Toodles Creative Media