Carl E. Woodward, L.L.C. v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance
743 F.3d 91
5th Cir.2014Background
- Pass Marianne contracted for condo construction on the Mississippi Gulf Coast; Woodward was the general contractor; DCM was the concrete subcontractor with Acceptance as CGL insurer; Pass Marianne’s later claims and Rimkus report framed alleged defects; Woodward and its insurer alleged the Rimkus report could trigger defense duties; district court held Acceptance had a duty to defend; appellate court reverses the duty to defend and remands for judgment in favor of Acceptance; the dispute centers on whether liability arose from ongoing or completed operations under the policy; the policy endorsement limits coverage to ongoing operations with an exclusion for damage after completion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to defend arising from ongoing operations | Woodward argues liability arose from DCM's ongoing operations | Acceptance argues liability arose from completed operations and is excluded | No duty to defend; liability arose from completed operations not ongoing |
| Effect of waiver on defense duty | Woodward contends Acceptance waived the argument by its briefing | Acceptance maintains no waiver in the record | No waiver found; still no duty to defend |
Key Cases Cited
- Lipscomb v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 75 So. 3d 557 (Miss. 2011) (insurance policy interpretation; duty to defend guided by policy and complaint)
- Titan Indem. Co. v. Williams, 743 So. 2d 1020 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (occurrence policy coverage; timing not fatal if occurs during policy period)
- Royer Homes of Miss., Inc. v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc., 857 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 2003) (liability arising out of ongoing operations requires causal connection to work)
- Weitz Co., LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 181 P.3d 309 (Colo. App. 2007) (ongoing vs completed operations; completed operations not covered under similar endorsement)
- Architex Ass’n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 1148 (Miss. 2010) (interpretation of CGL policy; fault handling and coverage distinctions)
- Absher Const. Co. v. N. Pac. Ins. Co., 861 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (construction defect exclusion under coverage)