Secura Insurance v. Horizon Plumbing, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4477
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Secura Insurance and Horizon Plumbing dispute whether Horizon's insurers must defend Horizon's additional insured Weitz against claims arising from Horizon's work on a construction project.
- Weitz sought about $1.1 million in defense costs for defending against Metropolitan's counterclaim.
- Metropolitan, the project owner's, counterclaimed for breach of contract against Weitz, including damages related to Horizon's work.
- The district court held there was no duty to defend because the counterclaim did not allege property damage caused by an occurrence.
- Weitz and insurers settled Horizon's defense costs; this appeal concerns whether any further defense costs are payable.
- Missouri law governs policy interpretation and the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Metropolitan's breach-of-contract counterclaim constitute an occurrence triggering coverage? | Weitz asserts an occurrence due to Horizon's faulty plumbing. | Insurers argue breach of contract claims do not state an occurrence. | No occurrence; no duty to defend Weitz. |
| Did Metropolitan's Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures create a duty to defend? | Weitz says disclosures show potentially covered claim. | Insurers contend disclosures do not create duty to defend. | Disclosures did not create a duty to defend. |
| Did Horizon's defense of Horizon's issues waive the insurers' right to deny defense for Weitz? | Weitz claims waiver by defense of Horizon. | No clear relinquishment of rights. | No waiver; defense did not clearly relinquish coverage rights. |
| Was Federated proper in granting defense while reserving rights, affecting summary judgment? | Weitz argues improper reliance on initial tender. | Federated reserved rights and denied coverage for non-occurrence claims. | Proper, no coverage for non-occurrence claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.E. Jones Constr. Co. v. Chubb & Sons, Inc., 486 F.3d 337 (8th Cir.2007) (occurrence not present in contract breach claims under Missouri law)
- Mathis v. Mo. Empl. Mut. Ins. Co., 974 S.W.2d 647 (Mo. Ct. App.1998) (plain meaning of occurrence; contract breach not an occurrence)
- McCormack Baron Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168 (Mo.1999) (duty to defend broader than indemnity; depends on potential liability)