Pinnacle's Limited Impact On California Property Litigation

by Zelle LLP

Insurance Law360 - November 2, 2012

[authors: Christopher T. Micheletti and Jose M. Umbert]

The California Supreme Court recently issued an important decision concerning the forum for litigation of construction defect claims.  However, as a practical matter, the court’s ruling may not have significant implications for construction defect disputes that also involve disputed first-party property insurance coverage claims. 

Construction defect claims often result in complex litigation involving numerous parties, such as the property owner, the architect or engineer, the general contractor, and subcontractors and suppliers.  In addition, property owners typically submit claims to their first-party property carriers, to recover damages for the physical loss or damage allegedly experienced by their property and/or business as a result of the construction defects.  The amounts at stake in these disputes can be very substantial.  For example, in September, a real estate developer filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court against its excess insurers, seeking coverage for the policy limits of $95 million, as well as bad faith damages, for alleged losses caused by a design defect in a condominium project. 

In August, the California Supreme Court issued an important decision in the area of construction defect litigation.  In Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass’n v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US) LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (2012), an action brought by a homeowners’ association against a condominium developer, the court held that agreements to arbitrate construction disputes, set forth in a recorded declaration, are enforceable against homeowners and their associations.  The Supreme Court noted that binding arbitration benefits both developers and homeowners by providing a speedy and relatively inexpensive means to resolve construction defect disputes.  The decision has been welcomed by the California building industry, which filed an amicus curiae brief in the case.  Nevertheless, in practice, Pinnacle may only have a limited impact on litigation in California arising out of construction defects, at least when there are also disputes as to the existence and amount of first-party property insurance coverage. 

Pursuant to well-established principles of arbitration law, which Pinnacle did not alter, an insurance carrier cannot be required to submit its coverage dispute with the insured property owner to binding arbitration in the absence of an arbitration provision in the policy.  Thus, the insured will be unable to add its property carrier as a party to any arbitration proceeding against the builder or other participants in the construction project.  This may result in duplicative proceedings addressing identical issues. 

For example, establishing the cause of an alleged construction defect is critical to the resolution of the underlying construction dispute, as it will determine which parties are liable for the damages suffered by the property owner.  At the same time, causation will be a crucial issue in the coverage action, particularly where, as is often the case in an insurance claim arising out of alleged construction defects, the property owner’s alleged loss is caused by multiple risks or perils.  Under California’s “efficient proximate cause” doctrine, when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered if the covered risk was the efficient proximate cause of the loss – i.e., the predominant or most important cause – even if an excluded peril contributed to the loss.  See, e.g., Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 35 Cal.4th 747 (2005).  A causation determination may thus be necessary to ascertain the existence of insurance coverage. 

Further, the applicability of the exclusion in property policies for faulty design, workmanship, and materials is often a key issue in construction defect coverage litigation.  This provision precludes coverage for physical loss or damage caused by a defect in the design and/or construction of a building.  The exclusion is, however, typically subject to an “ensuing loss” exception, which restores coverage for physical loss or damage that results from the excluded faulty workmanship but is caused by a separate covered peril, such as a fire or an explosion.  California courts define an “ensuing loss” as a loss separate and independent from the original excluded peril.  See, e.g., Sapiro v. Encompass Ins., 221 F.R.D. 513 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (insureds’ water intrusion losses were directly attributable to a contractor’s negligent work and thus excluded).  Here again, the determination of the cause of the physical loss or damage is critical to the outcome of the coverage dispute. 

California law provides courts with a mechanism to avoid this duplication of proceedings (the procedure applies only to arbitrations governed by the California Arbitration Act, not to those subject to the Federal Arbitration Act).  Pursuant to Section 1281.2(c) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, where a party to an arbitration is also involved in litigation with a third party arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions, and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact, the trial court may refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement, and order joinder of all parties in the pending litigation. 

This provision, which was not at issue in Pinnacle, may well apply to the situation described above, where a property owner has (i)  claims subject to arbitration against some of the parties involved in the construction, and (ii) nonarbitrable claims against its insurance carrier and other parties.  Indeed, in a decision issued earlier this year, the California Court of Appeal held that, where the purchaser of a home sued the developer for construction defects, and the seller of the property for nondisclosure, the trial court properly refused arbitration of the claims against the seller, because all the claims arose out of related transactions and there was a risk of inconsistent rulings concerning the existence of the construction defects.  Lindemann v. Hume, 204 Cal.App.4th 556 (2012). 

The Pinnacle decision was applauded by the building industry, and is expected by some to have a major impact on construction defect litigation in California.  However, when property insurance coverage issues are also involved, the ruling may have a limited practical effect because, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in favor of arbitration of construction defect disputes, lower courts will have the discretion to order parties to litigate their construction defect claims together with the insurance coverage claim in the court action.  The benefits of resolving all the issues in a single action may outweigh any perceived advantages of arbitration.  Moreover, consolidation of the proceedings can streamline discovery and facilitate settlement, to the benefit of all parties involved. 

--By Christopher Micheletti and Jose Umbert, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP

Chris Micheletti and José Umbert are partners with Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason in the firm’s San Francisco office.



DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Zelle LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Zelle  LLP

Zelle LLP 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.
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.