Search
Close this search box.

Can you ensure your major remodel project is a dream come true, rather than a nightmare waiting to happen?

Construction-Safety-Consultant

Can you ensure your major remodel project is a dream come true, rather than a nightmare waiting to happen?

October 20, 2023 – The home improvement industry is booming. In recent years, several factors have contributed to increased remodel activity. First, the COVID-19 pandemic caused many people to spend more time than ever in their homes, and remodeling to add workable office space or improve livability was suddenly more popular than ever.

Pandemic costs and complications then contributed to inflation that drove mortgage rates upward. People with 2.875% fixed mortgages had no desire to sell their homes and borrow to buy a new one at 8%. So remodeling seemed more attractive than moving.

Dealing with contractors and minimizing risk can be a full-time job, at least until the remodel is finished. And even when things go well, remodeling is itself an expensive and risky proposition for homeowners. When things go wrong, a worker can be seriously injured, or substantial property damage can happen.

This article highlights a few remodel contract provisions that typically go unnoticed but can limit or impact insurance coverage and be critically important if something goes wrong during the remodel. A little advance planning can make unwanted surprises less likely and more manageable.

Imagine a scenario where homeowners hire a contractor to perform a large remodel on their property. Before work starts, the owners review and sign the contract (which is provided by the contractor and has boilerplate language including an insurance provision). A few weeks into the project something goes terribly wrong — a pipe must have been broken during excavation and now the owners’ yard and pool house are sliding into the neighbor’s suddenly drenched backyard.

The contractor’s liability insurance should cover the damage, right? It depends.

There is a chance the homeowner’s own insurance may apply; or worse, the homeowner is personally on the hook. Who pays, and whether it is covered by insurance, may depend both on exactly what happened and what the remodel contract says.

Example contract language

Let’s start with a scenario where the Contract is presented as a “standard form” agreement with the following provisions:

3.1. The Contractor shall maintain general liability insurance for any injuries related to the Work. Contractor shall include the Owner as an additional insured for claims or damages caused by the act or omissions of the Contractor.

3.2. The Owner shall purchase and maintain adequate insurance to cover all Work.

3.3. The Owner and Contractor waive all rights against each other for damages caused by fire or other perils to the extent covered by other insurance applicable to the Work.

After the property damage occurred to the homeowner’s house, the owner makes a claim with the Contractor’s general liability insurance. General Liability insurance typically covers bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident.

However, in this scenario, the Contractor named the homeowner as an additional insured. The General Liability policy may exclude property damage to property owned by an insured. Accordingly, the Contractor’s insurer could deny coverage. If the neighbor sues for the damage to their yard, the owned property exclusion would not apply; so that’s at least some consolation.

The homeowners may want to sue the Contractor for negligence. However, if the owner’s own insurance covers the damage to the yard and pool house, section 3.3 in the contract could take away the owners’ (and the owners’ insurer’s) right to sue the contractor. In the 1994 case, Lloyd’s Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., a California appellate court interpreted similar contract language as waiving the owner’s right to sue the contractor.

The homeowners are left with no choice but to make a claim with their own homeowners insurance to cover the damages. Even if full property insurance coverage is available, (and this particular scenario raises possible exclusions, such as earth movement), this approach could force the homeowners to pay the deductible and potentially face higher future premiums or difficulty staying insured.

Like the Contractor’s general liability insurance, the homeowners’ own liability insurance will probably exclude damage to property owned by an insured (and the homeowners really did nothing to cause the damage anyway). This may mean that only the neighbor’s damage is covered.

To make matters worse, a contractor could argue that the homeowner breached the contract (provision 3.2) by failing to maintain proper insurance that adequately covered risks arising from the work.

What happens if the contract says nothing about insurance? What if the contract reads as follows:

3.1 Owner shall hold harmless and indemnify Contractor against all claims arising out of Contractor’s work. Contractor is not responsible for any injury to persons or damage to property.

In this scenario, there is no contractual duty for the Contractor to get any insurance. This agreement also appears to shift the risk of loss to the homeowners, making it more important than ever for the homeowners to have adequate insurance of their own. When something goes wrong in this scenario, the homeowners are likely to learn that they have no right to sue the contractor (which may not be adequately insured anyway).

What about subcontractors?

Something to consider when hiring a contractor is whether they will be hiring subcontractors to perform all or some of the work. This may impact the application of any insurance the parties obtain. A contractor may also forget to verify that these subcontractors are adequately insured.

A contractual provision relating to subcontractors may read as follows:

3.4 Contractor may subcontract portions of this work to properly licensed and qualified subcontractors, who will be solely responsible for all aspects of the subcontracted work and any resulting loss or damage.

This provision does not address insurance coverage. In the event of an injury or damage, the parties will be left to point the finger at each other, and their liability insurers may do the same thing. What a mess!

How can you protect yourself?

The first line of defense to avoid these unwanted surprises is to select properly licensed, qualified and insured contractors. Spot issues in the contract which may subject a homeowner to liability down the road.

At the very minimum, homeowners need to understand the responsibilities they are agreeing to undertake when signing these agreements. This may include purchasing additional insurance solely for the project (such as builder’s risk insurance.).

Before starting a large remodel project, homeowners may want to consult with an insurance broker to understand the insurance coverage that is available and needed for the particular remodel project. If the budget allows, consultation with an experienced attorney might also help spot and remedy potential problems in advance.

Another way to protect yourself is to confirm the licensed contractor uses only licensed subcontractors, and actually has the insurance promised. Requesting a copy of the Contractor’s liability and workers’ compensation insurance policies, rather than merely accepting a certificate of insurance (typically a short one-page high level and very partial summary of insurance), can help eliminate surprises.

A major remodel can be a very exciting thing for homeowners. But the risks that can attach are considerable. Be aware; plan ahead; read the contract; and consult with appropriate professionals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote