Insurance Coverage – Duty to Defend – Construction Defects

by Low, Ball & Lynch


Regional Steel Corporation v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation

Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (June 13, 2014)

There has been a split of decisions in California as to whether incorporation of a defective product into a construction project may itself constitute “property damage” under a CGL policy, or whether more is required to show “property damage” to some other portion of the project.  This case addressed that split where the allegations of a cross-complaint were critical of the insured’s “product” incorporated into a construction project, without alleging any resultant damage elsewhere in the project.

JSM Florentine, LLC (“JSM”) was the owner of an apartment building being constructed in North Hollywood in 2004.  Regional Steel Corporation (“Regional”) was a subcontractor engaged to provide reinforcing steel or “rebar” to the project’s columns, walls and floors.  Regional prepared and submitted shop drawings calling for use of both 90 degree and 135 degree seismic rebar tie hooks in the shear walls.  This specification was approved by both JSM and the project architect, Babayan Associates (“Babayan”).  Regional thereafter began installing the rebar on the first several floors of the project, which was subsequently covered up by concrete poured by Webcor Construction, LP (“Webcor”).  Shortly thereafter, the city building inspector issued a correction notice requiring that only the 135 degree tie hooks be used and forbidding use of 90 degree tie hooks.  The city subsequently notified JSM that several levels of the garage had defective (i.e., 90 degree) tie hooks, and that they had to be removed and repaired.  JSM withheld some $545,000 in invoices from Regional, pending agreement over responsibility for the repairs.

Regional filed an action against JSM for payment of the $545,000.  JSM cross-complained against Regional and others, including Babayan and Webcor, for defective construction relative to the use of 90 degree tie hooks by Regional, Webcor’s pouring of concrete over the tie hooks, and Babayan’s approval of the same.  JSM sought damages including cost of removal and replacement of the alleged defective tie hooks and loss of use and rental income due to delays on the project.  Webcor filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnity against JSM, Regional and Babayan, alleging (in a conclusory fashion) that its own fault was passive and secondary.

JSM and Regional were both named insureds under a commercial liability policy from Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (“Liberty”), which was converted to a “wrap” policy specific to the project.  The policy applied to “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and excluded coverage for “property damage” to “impaired property” arising out of a “defect” in “your work” or “your product.”

Regional tendered defense of JSM’s cross-complaint to Liberty, which denied that it had any duty to defend the claim.  Liberty asserted that the purely economic losses caused by the need to repair did not constitute property damage.  After Webcor’s cross-complaint was filed, Regional tendered again to Liberty, based on allegations in Webcor’s cross-complaint that the claims raised by JSM against Webcor were Regional’s responsibility, specifically as to out-of-level concrete floors and resulting cracks in the same.  Liberty denied this second tender, noting that there was no evidence JSM itself was asserting claims for out-of-level floors, or that it alleged this had anything to do with Regional’s work.

Regional, JSM, Webcor and Babayan settled the claims amongst them. The settlement agreement (to which Liberty was not a party) set forth that Regional “caused or was responsible for damage to, and loss of use of, tangible property…including …out-of-level, cracked…floors.”  Regional thereafter filed suit against Liberty, alleging claims for breach of contract and bad faith for failure to defend and settle the claims against it.  Liberty filed for summary judgment, and the trial court found that Liberty had no duty to defend Regional.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the defective steel work did not constitute “property damage,” and that the destructive work required to repair it did not transform it into property damage caused by an occurrence.  In reaching the conclusion that the defective tie hooks did not constitute “property damage,” the court noted that there was a conflict in law as to whether construction defects that are incorporated into a whole property constitute property damage for purposes of a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy.

The first line of cases followed the rule that coverage for the cost of removing and replacing the defective work or material of the insured is not covered, and that such cost is an economic loss, not physical injury to the property.  The Court noted that these cases are “consistent with the basic purpose of liability policies,” which are not designed to provide contractors and developers with coverage against claims that their work is inferior or defective.  According to the Court, the risk of replacing and repairing defective materials or poor workmanship has generally been considered a commercial risk which is not passed on to the liability insurer.

The second line of cases has held that incorporation of a defective part into a whole construction project may constitute property damage within the meaning of a CGL policy.  In this regard, the Court looked at Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1, where the California Supreme Court held that there was property damage under a CGL policy based on the incorporation of asbestos tiles and insulation into a building because the potentially hazardous material was physically linked to the building.  The Court here noted thatArmstrong, as well as other cases following its ruling, all generally involved contamination by hazardous defective materials or products that were incorporated into a whole.  This contamination resulted in property damage to the property as a whole, not just to the defective product itself.

The Court noted that even in Armstrong, the Supreme Court acknowledged the general rule that there was no “property damage” and thus no coverage for replacement of a defective part installed by the insured, but that because of the hazards allegedly caused by the defective asbestos tiles and insulation, that rule was not applicable.  The Court of Appeal held that the Armstrong line of cases was not applicable here, since the allegedly defective rebar ties did not contaminate any other portion of the project or the project itself.  Consequently, there was no property damage.

Summary judgment for the insurer was affirmed.


This may be an issue ripe for review by the Supreme Court, since the Appellate Court has effectively attempted to limit the Supreme Court’s ruling in Armstrong.  Unless challenged, this case holds that there is no coverage where the only claimed “property damage” is the removal of the insured’s product itself.

For a copy of the complete decision, see:


Written by:

Low, Ball & Lynch

Low, Ball & Lynch on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.