
The Navy issued non-compliance notices to the GC after discovering defects in work performed by various subcontractors, including EKE.
As we ring in the New Year, one thing remains the same: understanding the definitions and conditions in your insurance policy is critical. In a recent decision, a Florida federal court in Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. E Kelly Enterprises Inc. et al., No. 3:22-cv-24754, held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a general contractor and no duty to indemnify a subcontractor for damages from defective work on a naval base, based on the policy’s definition of “suit,” “property damage,” and allocation requirements. The decision highlights the importance of numerous issues in the context of commercial general liability policies, including the nuances of policy definitions, obtaining insurer consent when necessary, and allocation between covered and uncovered claims.
Background
In October 2014, a general contractor (“GC”) was awarded a contract by the Navy to renovate buildings at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola. The GC subcontracted work to various subcontractors, including metal framing and drywall, to a subcontractor named EKE.
Reprinted courtesy of Cary D. Steklof, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@hunton.com
Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@hunton.com