Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc.
2011 WL 5078777
D. Minnesota2011Background
- Insurance coverage dispute over the Friedbergs' Masterpiece Policy for their Wayzata home; policy excludes gradual loss, mold, and construction defects with an ensuing-loss provision.
- Friedbergs’ home contains EIFS by Dryvit; class-action settlement process for Dryvit-related water damage; inspections found moisture intrusion and damage attributable to construction issues.
- Chubb denied the claim in August 2007 on the basis of the Construction Defects Exclusion and ensuing loss language.
- This action was removed from state court; the court later granted summary judgment in favor of Chubb after discovery.
- Cross motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude expert testimony were decided, with the court granting summary judgment for Chubb and denying others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction Defects Exclusion applicability | Friedbergs: exclusion should not bar all losses or may be limited to replacement costs | Chubb: exclusion unambiguously applies to losses caused by faulty construction | Construction Defects Exclusion applies to both the faulty construction and resulting loss |
| Ensuing loss provision effect | Ensuing loss restores coverage for losses from excluded perils | No separable/distinct ensuing loss; exclusion stands | Ensuing loss provision does not restore coverage; exclusion bars the claim |
| Prima facie case of coverage | Policy covers all risk of physical loss; damage constitutes loss | Once exclusion applies, burden shifts to insurer to prove exclusion | Friedbergs establish prima facie coverage; burden shifts to Chubb, which prevails due to exclusion |
| Admissibility of expert testimony | Doggett and Gubbe relied on photographs and field experience | Experts’ qualifications and reliability support admissibility | Court denies exclusion; experts’ testimony deemed reliable and admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Family Ins. Co. v. Walser, 628 N.W.2d 605 (Minn. 2001) (policy interpretation follows contract principles)
- SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 536 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1995) (burden-shifting framework for coverage and exclusions)
- Robinson v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 447 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 2006) (Rule 702 qualification standard for experts; relevance and reliability)
- Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc., 394 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2005) (Daubert gatekeeping and expert admissibility)