{"id":5060,"date":"2024-07-08T07:29:00","date_gmt":"2024-07-08T07:29:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/?p=5060"},"modified":"2024-07-08T13:50:01","modified_gmt":"2024-07-08T13:50:01","slug":"recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/","title":{"rendered":"Recent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders’ Risk Coverage"},"content":{"rendered":"
By Matthew G. Nelson<\/a><\/h6>\n
Matt is an associate in the firm’s Construction Law Department. He can be reached at 612.359.8611 or mnelson@fwhtlaw.com<\/a>.<\/u><\/h6>\n

Introduction<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Insurance is a cornerstone of risk management and allocation on construction projects.\u00a0 Project contracts typically require either owners or contractors to carry builders\u2019 risk coverage, which is often written on so-called \u201call-risk\u201d forms, meaning they provide coverage for all perils or causes of loss that are not excluded by the policy terms.\u00a0 In addition to covering loss of or damage to materials or work-in-progress, common builders\u2019 risk coverages include soft costs and claim preparation costs incurred following a loss, while endorsements may add coverage for business income losses or losses incurred due to delay in completion of the project, all typically subject to various sub-limits.\u00a0 If the policy is procured by the owner, the contractor and sub-tier contractors are generally included as additional insureds covered by builders risk policies, \u201cas their respective interests may appear\u201d in connection with any given loss.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Builders\u2019 risk coverage is often referred to as \u201cfirst party\u201d coverage as it covers the work of the contractor, but the scope of protection afforded by the policy is frequently limited by “workmanship exlusions” barring coverage for the contractor\u2019s faulty construction or design. As a consequence, the scope and \u00a0outer limits of the workmanship exclusion are of particular interest to contractors, as are questions involving the restoration of coverage by \u201censuing loss\u201d exceptions to those exclusions.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recently, federal district courts in Washington D.C. and Florida have issued decisions interpreting a particular variation on the \u201cworkmanship exclusion\u201d known as the LEG-3 or the LEG-3 Extension.\u00a0 The LEG-3 is promulgated by the London Engineering Group (hence \u201cLEG\u201d), and is widely considered to be among the most policyholder-friendly of the various workmanship exclusions.\u00a0 While it has been around in one version or another for some time, these are among the first court decisions in the United States to analyze LEG-3 language, so they have important implications for owners and contractors seeking to manage project risks during construction through builders\u2019 risk coverage.<\/p>\n

The LEG-3 Extension\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 When considering particular LEG-3 language it is helpful to compare it against more common workmanship exclusion clauses.\u00a0 While terms and exclusions vary from policy to policy, the following provides an example of typical workmanship exclusion in an \u201call-risk\u201d policy that otherwise affords coverage against \u201call risks of direct physical loss of or damage to insured property\u201d:<\/p>\n

This Policy shall not pay for loss, damage, or expense caused directly or indirectly by any of the following.\u00a0 Such loss, damage, or expense is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence with the loss or damage:<\/p>\n

*\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0 *<\/p>\n

Faulty or defective workmanship or materials, or fault, defect, error, deficiency, or omission in design, plan, or specification, unless direct physical loss or damage by an insured peril ensues, and then this Policy will cover for such ensuing loss or damage only.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Litigation over the application of this and similar language to particular losses regularly involves such esoteric debates as whether the term \u201cworkmanship\u201d as used in the exclusion is a verb or a noun[1]<\/sup><\/a>, or where one loss ends and another begins[2]<\/sup><\/a>, such as whether loss caused by water intrusion through defective workmanship constitutes an ensuing loss.[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 While the language of the LEG-3 is subject to these same debates in one form or another, it also invites other disputes over scope and application.\u00a0 The model LEG-3\/06 language published by the London Engineering Group is as follows:<\/p>\n

The Insurer(s) shall not be liable for<\/p>\n

All costs rendered necessary by defects of material workmanship design plan specification and should damage (which for the purposes of this exclusion shall include any patent detrimental change in the physical condition of the Insured Property) occur to any portion of the Insured Property containing any of the said defects the cost of replacement or rectification which is hereby excluded is that cost incurred to improve the original material workmanship design plan or specification.<\/p>\n

For the purpose of the policy and not merely this exclusion it is understood and agreed that any portion of the Insured Property shall not be regarded as damaged solely by virtue of the existence of any defect of material workmanship design plan or specification.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Two recent court decisions issued in 2023 and 2024 analyze similar LEG-3 language and shed important light on the meaning and scope of this language.\u00a0 These cases focus on the term \u201cimprove\u201d as used in the LEG-3, and particularly how it may be understood to operate as a limit on the \u201ccost of replacement or rectification\u201d that is arguably otherwise covered.\u00a0 These cases also reject the insurers\u2019 attempts to add terms to the policies that are not reflected in the actual policy language.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u00a0 S. Capitol Bridgebuilders v. Lexington Ins. Co.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The contractor in the South Capitol<\/em> case[5]<\/sup><\/a> was hired to construct the replacement Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge spanning the Anacostia River in Washington D.C.\u00a0 The bridge is a tied-arch bridge constructed with a composite deck tied to steel arches supported by cast-in-place concrete abutments and piers.\u00a0 The contractor poured the abutments and piers in several lifts.\u00a0 While pouring, the contractor vibrated the concrete while it was plastic, to consolidate it within the formwork.\u00a0 However, the formwork configurations limited the contractor\u2019s access and ability to vibrate the concrete in some areas.\u00a0 After the concrete set, the contractor removed the formwork and discovered honeycombing and voiding, indicative of inadequate consolidation.\u00a0 Because voiding in particular can reduce a concrete structure\u2019s weightbearing capacity, the contractor was forced to add temporary shoring to other elements of the bridge while it cut, demolished, and then replaced large sections of the abutments with non-defective concrete, to achieve specified weightbearing capacities.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lexington issued a \u201ccompleted value builders\u2019 risk\u201d policy to the contractor.\u00a0 The policy term included the period of bridge construction, and the policy provided coverage for \u201call risks of direct physical loss of or damage to insured property\u201d including \u201call materials, supplies, equipment, machinery, and other property\u2026when used or to be used in or incidental to the demolition of existing structures, site preparation, fabrication or assembly, installation or erection or the construction of or alteration, renovation, rehabilitation of the Insured Project\u201d as well as temporary work such as scaffolding, formwork, and falsework \u201cincidental to the project.\u201d[7]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The Lexington policy contained a typical workmanship exclusion, but it was replaced by a \u201cLEG 3 Defect Extension\u201d as follows:<\/p>\n

    Perils Excluded, Item C. is deleted and replaced by the following:<\/p>\n

    All costs rendered necessary by defects of material workmanship, design, plan, or specification and should damage (which for the purposes of this exclusion shall include any patent detrimental change in the physical condition of the Insured Property) occur to any portion of the Insured Property containing any of the said defects, the cost of replacement or rectification which is hereby excluded is that cost incurred to improve the original material workmanship design plan or specification.<\/p>\n

    For the purpose of this policy and not merely this exclusion it is understood and agreed that any portion of the Insured Property shall not be regarded as damaged solely by virtue of the existence of any defect of material workmanship, design, plan, or specification.<\/p>\n

    All other terms and conditions of the policy remain the same.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The contractor submitted a claim to Lexington under the policy, seeking recovery of $2.2M it incurred to repair the bridge, and Lexington denied the claim.\u00a0 Both Lexington and the contractor agreed that the contractor\u2019s deficient workmanship caused the voiding which necessitated the repair, but disagreed as to, among other things, whether the LEG-3 Extension excluded coverage for the repair cost.\u00a0 The court characterized its effort to answer this question as \u201cuntangl[ing] the tortured language of the Extension\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a> while observing:<\/p>\n

    The LEG 3 Extension is ambiguous\u2014egregiously so.\u00a0 To understand this, one need only attempt to read it.\u00a0 In just three sentences, Lexington managed to squeeze in a run-on sentence, an undefined term, several mispunctuations, and a scrivener\u2019s error\u2026.The Extension is internally inconsistent and bordering incomprehensible [and the contractor\u2019s] statement that the Extension is \u201cconvoluted\u201d is an understatement.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Given this less-than-flattering assessment, it will come as no surprise that the court granted the contractor\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Lexington breached the insurance contract when it denied coverage for the contractor\u2019s repair costs.[11]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 In doing so, the court observed that the LEG-3 replaced a broad workmanship exclusion with a narrower one, and thereby broadened the coverage available under the policy.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 First, the court determined that the contractor\u2019s claim involved \u201cdamage\u201d under the LEG-3, as the concrete voiding caused by the contractor\u2019s defective workmanship was visible to the naked eye and reduced the weightbearing capacity of the bridge.\u00a0 Next, the court addressed the parties\u2019 disagreement over the meaning of the term \u201cimprove,\u201d as the LEG-3 only excluded replacement or rectification costs that are incurred to \u201cimprove the original material workmanship design plan or specification.\u201d\u00a0 The contractor argued that the term \u201cimprove\u201d as used in the LEG-3 means \u201cmaking it better than originally planned\u201d while Lexington argued that \u201csimply patching or replacing defective components constitutes an improvement.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The court characterized Lexington\u2019s interpretation as meeting \u201cthe low bar of being reasonable in light of the mishmash of terms that comprise the LEG 3 Extension,\u201d while also noting that Lexington\u2019s view bordered on being unreasonable, because it seemed to collapse the distinction between improvement costs and replacement costs that is obviously contemplated by the LEG-3 language.\u00a0 In light of the ambiguity, the court construed the LEG-3 Extension against Lexington and in favor of coverage, and concluded on the undisputed facts that Lexington breached the policy when it denied the contractor\u2019s claim for repair coverage.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \u00a0 \u00a0Archer Western \u2013 De Moya Joint Venture v. Ace Am. Ins. Co.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The distinction between the terms \u201cimprovement\u201d and \u201crepair,\u201d as used in a LEG-3 Extension, was also critical to the outcome in Archer Western<\/em>[14]<\/sup><\/a>, another recent case involving defective concrete and highway\/heavy and bridge work.\u00a0 The contractor in Archer Western<\/em> was hired to construct the I-395\/S.R. 836 Reconstruction\/Rehabilitation project in Miami.\u00a0 The project involved reconstruction of interstate and other roadways, along with a viaduct bridge.\u00a0 The contractor also installed temporary batch plants at the project site, to mix and furnish the concrete needed for the project.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The FDOT specifications allowed for the substitution of fly ash for a certain portion of Portland cement in the concrete mix.\u00a0 During the project, a pressure relief valve at one of the batch plants malfunctioned, allowing excessive amounts of fly ash to be added to the dry mix of cement, aggregate, and sand.\u00a0 This \u201ccontaminated\u201d concrete mix was then combined with water, used in several pours throughout the project, and incorporated into project components such as roadway sections, footings, piles, and piers.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 When utilized in correct proportion to other elements of a concrete mix, fly ash can extend and improve the workability of fresh concrete and result in stronger hardened concrete.\u00a0 But too much fly ash in a mix can produce low-strength concrete with reduced compressive strength.[16]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Indeed, the \u201ccontaminated\u201d concrete used by the contractor caused portions of the roadways and bridge structures to fail to achieve specified 28-day strength thresholds, and the contractor undertook efforts to remove and replace the defective concrete.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Before starting the project, the contractor obtained an \u201call-risk\u201d builders\u2019 risk policy from Ace.\u00a0 The policy insured \u201cagainst all risk of direct physical loss or damage to property of every kind and description intended to become a permanent part of, or consumed in, the fabrication, assembly, installation, erection or alteration of the Insured Project\u201d for the duration of the project construction.[17]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 As in South Capitol<\/em>, the contractor\u2019s builders\u2019 risk policy replaced the standard workmanship exclusion with a LEG-3 Extension:<\/p>\n

      The following changes are made to ACE 0219, Part D, Excluded Causes of Loss, 19 and 20 are deleted and replaced by the following:<\/p>\n

      This Policy does not insure any costs rendered necessary by defects of material, workmanship, design, plan, or specification and should damage occur to any portion of the Insured Property containing any of the said defects, the cost of replacement or rectification which is hereby excluded is that cost incurred to improve the original material, workmanship, design, plan or specification.<\/p>\n

      For the purpose of this policy and not merely this exclusion it is understood and agreed that any portion of the Insured Property shall not be regarded as damaged solely by virtue of the existence of any defect of material, workmanship, design, plan, or specification.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Around the time that the contractor was placing defective concrete, it also experienced formwork buckling while pouring a pier.\u00a0 The contractor submitted a claim to Ace to cover costs incurred to remove and replace the concrete and steel components damaged by the formwork buckling.\u00a0 An adjuster reviewed the formwork loss and opined \u201cThis is LEG 3 language (we cover ensuing damages and the defective portion itself, however, we do not pay any improvement costs to fix the defect),\u201d and Ace accepted the formwork loss.[19]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 However, when the contractor also sought coverage for its costs incurred to remove and replace the concrete \u201ccontaminated\u201d by excessive fly ash from other components of the project, Ace rejected the claim.\u00a0 Ace took the position that the LEG-3 Extension excluded coverage for such defective material \u201cbecause it was never in a satisfactory state and was therefore not damaged.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The contractor sued, and Ace moved for summary judgment.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The court denied Ace\u2019s motion, concluding that issues of fact and policy ambiguities necessitated a trial.[21]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 First, the court observed that Ace\u2019s \u201cinitial satisfactory state\u201d argument had its genesis in a Fifth Circuit case, in which the \u201cphysical loss or damage\u201d requirement of an insuring clause was described as follows:<\/p>\n

      The language \u201cphysical loss or damage\u201d strongly implies that there was an initial satisfactory state that was changed by some external event into an unsatisfactory state\u2014for example, the car was undamaged before the collision dented the bumper.\u00a0 It would not ordinarily be thought to encompass faulty initial construction.[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The insurer\u2019s position boiled down to this: something cannot become damaged if it is defective from the start.\u00a0 The court rejected this argument, reasoning that all-risk builders\u2019 risk policies cover loss or damage of every kind unless otherwise excluded and, if defective construction could not constitute such damage, arguably the workmanship exclusion would be wholly unnecessary in the first instance.[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Turning next to the LEG-3 Extension\u2019s specific requirement that insured property will not be considered \u201cdamaged solely by virtue of the existence\u201d of defective workmanship or material, the court further reasoned that, as in South Capitol<\/em>, the damage to the insured property arguably did not exist solely<\/em> because the concrete was defective.\u00a0 Instead, the damage to insured property arguably could be characterized as the reduced structural integrity of the roadway and bridge components, which resulted from the incorporation of the defective concrete into those components.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Finally, the court also sided with the contractor\u2019s position that the LEG-3 Extension is ambiguous as to whether its use of the term \u201cimprove\u201d should be construed to exclude the cost to repair the as-built roadway and bridge components or, instead, merely to exclude the cost of rebuilding them to standards exceeding the original plan or design.\u00a0 The court again relied heavily on the analysis is South Capitol<\/em> to conclude that the LEG-3 Extension is ambiguous on this point.\u00a0 To underscore the conflict, the court observed that Ace\u2019s decision to accept the formwork loss, but subsequent denial of the concrete-contamination loss, were diametrically opposed and \u201creasonable jurists and jurors could view\u201d Ace\u2019s different positions on the two losses \u201cto be fundamentally inconsistent.\u201d[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      Conclusion and Takeaways \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The LEG-3 Extension is widely viewed as the most policyholder-friendly of the workmanship exclusions.\u00a0 Despite the \u201cmishmash\u201d of \u201cegregious\u201d ambiguities, it has commonly been understood to afford coverage for ensuing loss and costs to repair an insured\u2019s defective work, while excluding only the costs incurred to improve upon originally specified design, materials, or workmanship.\u00a0 However, some insurers have started to challenge the conventional view.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Thus far, the insurers mounting these challenges have not fared well.\u00a0 The recent South Capitol<\/em> and Archer Western<\/em> cases are among the first decisions issued by United States jurisdictions to analyze the LEG-3 Extension.\u00a0 Both cases rejected the insurers\u2019 attempts to graft an \u201cinitial satisfactory state\u201d requirement onto the policy language, while also concluding that the LEG-3 Extension is ambiguous.\u00a0 Due to the differing case postures, the South Capitol<\/em> court construed the ambiguity in favor of coverage on undisputed facts, and granted the contractor\u2019s motion, while the Archer Western<\/em> court relied on the ambiguity and disputed facts to deny Ace\u2019s motion.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 These decisions suggest that clarifications are in order, if policyholders and insurers wish to accurately capture their shared intent when utilizing a LEG-3 endorsement.\u00a0 Until then, these decisions should be an important resource for policyholders with LEG-3 endorsements, in the event they find themselves submitting claims after experiencing workmanship-related losses. \u00a0If repair work occasioned by defective workmanship does not involve improvements beyond the originally specified designs, material, or workmanship, then losses subject to the LEG-3 Extension should be promptly adjusted and settled, so that policyholders can avoid or minimize delay, disruption, or other impacts, and move their projects forward.<\/p>\n

      Announcements<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A. has been ranked as a Band 1 Construction Law Firm in Minnesota by the well-recognized Chambers professional rating service.<\/p>\n

      Dean Thomson<\/a><\/strong> (Band 1 Construction Law)<\/p>\n

      Kyle Hart<\/a> (<\/strong>Band 1 Construction Law)<\/p>\n

      Mark Becker<\/a><\/strong> (Band 1 Construction Law)<\/p>\n

      Jesse Orman<\/a><\/strong> (Band 3 Construction Law)<\/p>\n

      Rory Duggan<\/a><\/strong> (Band 3 Real Estate Law)<\/p>\n

      Julia Douglass<\/a><\/strong> (Up and Coming)<\/p>\n

      Here\u2019s what Chambers has to say about FWHT: \u201cThe team is esteemed for its dedicated construction group, which brings deep industry insight to disputes, contract negotiations, planning issues and arbitration matters. The group represents diverse participants from the public and private sectors, including design professionals, insurers and subcontractors. The firm frequently acts on large-scale regional and national projects. It has attorneys who are well known in the sector, having been appointed to leadership roles at a variety of industry bodies.\u201d\u00a0\u201cThis firm\u2019s results are always exceptional, so there is great value in their services.\u201d \u201cTheir team of attorneys know construction and construction law inside and out.\u201d<\/strong><\/em> For more information click here.<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A. <\/strong>is pleased to announce that Mpls. St. Paul Magazine <\/strong>has named\u00a0Julia Douglass<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>as as one of the \u201cTop Women Attorneys in Minnesota\u201d <\/strong>in its April 2024 issue. For more information click here.<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      Mark Becker<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>is recognized by Minnesota Lawyer as a\u00a0Power 30 attorney<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>in the field of Real Estate and Construction Law.\u00a0 Congratulations to Mark at Fabyanske, Westra, Hart and Thomson <\/strong>for this prestigious recognition. For more information click here.<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n

      [1]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 See, e.g., Kroll Constr. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.<\/em>, 594 F.Supp. 304, 307 (N.D. Ga. 1984) (\u201c\u2019Faulty or defective workmanship,\u2019 then, means the faulty or defective execution of making or doing something.\u201d); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Smith<\/em>, 929 F.2d 447 (9th Cir. 1991) (\u201cfaulty workmanship\u201d means the \u201cflawed quality of the product worked upon\u201d); City of Oak Harbor v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.<\/em>, 159 P.3d 422, 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (whether faulty workmanship refers to a faulty process or faulty product, exclusion applied because contractor\u2019s negligent dredging also produced a faulty product).<\/p>\n

      [2]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 See, e.g., Rocky Mountain Prestress, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.<\/em>, 960 F.3d 1255, 1261-1262 (10th Cir. 2020) (The \u201cresulting-loss exception to a defective-workmanship exclusion does not provide coverage for the costs of repairing or replacing defectively designed or constructed parts of a structure; rather, the exception only restores coverage for damage sustained when the defective workmanship becomes the cause of additional, separate damage.\u201d); See also Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co.<\/em>, 921 F.3d 803, 806-807, 818-819 (9th Cir. 2019) (Damage to one part of a nitrogen rejection unit at gas purification plant caused by faulty workmanship performed on different part of the same nitrogen rejection unit, covered as an ensuing loss).<\/p>\n

      [3]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 See, e.g., Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc.<\/em>, 691 F.3d 948, 953-954 (8th Cir. 2012) (\u201cThe better view of Minnesota law, however, is that the ensuing-loss provision excludes from coverage the normal results of defective construction\u201d such as water intrusion damage) (cleaned up).<\/p>\n

      [4]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Available at: https:\/\/www.londonengineeringgroup.com\/resource-library<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      [5]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2023 WL 6388974 (D. D.C. September 29, 2023).<\/p>\n

      [6]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *2-3.<\/p>\n

      [7]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *1.<\/p>\n

      [8]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *2.<\/p>\n

      [9]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *6.<\/p>\n

      [10]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *6, 9.<\/p>\n

      [11]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 11.<\/p>\n

      [12]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *9.<\/p>\n

      [13]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *10-11.<\/p>\n

      [14]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2024 WL 1250179 (S.D. Fla. January 12, 2024).<\/p>\n

      [15]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *8.<\/p>\n

      [16]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *6-7.<\/p>\n

      [17]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *4.<\/p>\n

      [18]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *5.\u00a0 Note, this is LEG-3\/96 language, instead of the LEG-3\/06 language involved in South Capitol<\/em>.\u00a0 See https:\/\/www.londonengineeringgroup.com\/resource-library<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      [19]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2024 WL 1250179, at *9.<\/p>\n

      [20]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

      [21]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *27.<\/p>\n

      [22]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *16-17, citing and quoting Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.<\/em>, 916 F.2d 267, 270-271 (5th Cir. 1990).<\/p>\n

      [23]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2024 WL 1250179, at *20-21.<\/p>\n

      [24]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *24-27.<\/p>\n

      [25]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at *17, 26-27.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      By Matthew G. Nelson Matt is an associate in the firm’s Construction Law Department. He can be reached at 612.359.8611 or mnelson@fwhtlaw.com. Introduction \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Insurance is a cornerstone of risk management and allocation\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":3517,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-briefing-papers","category-matthew-g-nelson"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nRecent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders' Risk Coverage - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Recent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders' Risk Coverage - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Matthew G. Nelson Matt is an associate in the firm’s Construction Law Department. He can be reached at 612.359.8611 or mnelson@fwhtlaw.com. Introduction \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Insurance is a cornerstone of risk management and allocation\u2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-07-08T07:29:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-08T13:50:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Matthew-Nelson-550x275-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"550\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"275\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"John Mansir\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"John Mansir\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/\",\"name\":\"Recent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders' Risk Coverage - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-07-08T07:29:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-08T13:50:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6b135c74354fdf14ce071a939f531d92\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Recent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders’ Risk Coverage\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson\",\"description\":\"Twin Cities Law Firm | Business Attorneys\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6b135c74354fdf14ce071a939f531d92\",\"name\":\"John Mansir\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/127405e9f8f9272ac5748796e7ddc8013e1b51eb3e9eafeb91c84180a9d11105?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/127405e9f8f9272ac5748796e7ddc8013e1b51eb3e9eafeb91c84180a9d11105?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"John Mansir\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/author\/jmansirfwhtlaw-com\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Recent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders' Risk Coverage - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Recent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders' Risk Coverage - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","og_description":"By Matthew G. Nelson Matt is an associate in the firm’s Construction Law Department. He can be reached at 612.359.8611 or mnelson@fwhtlaw.com. Introduction \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Insurance is a cornerstone of risk management and allocation\u2026","og_url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/","og_site_name":"Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","article_published_time":"2024-07-08T07:29:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-07-08T13:50:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":550,"height":275,"url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Matthew-Nelson-550x275-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"John Mansir","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"John Mansir","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/","url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/","name":"Recent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders' Risk Coverage - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-07-08T07:29:00+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-08T13:50:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6b135c74354fdf14ce071a939f531d92"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/08\/recent-developments-involving-the-leg-3-extension-to-builders-risk-coverage\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Recent Developments Involving the LEG-3 Extension to Builders’ Risk Coverage"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/","name":"Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","description":"Twin Cities Law Firm | Business Attorneys","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6b135c74354fdf14ce071a939f531d92","name":"John Mansir","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/127405e9f8f9272ac5748796e7ddc8013e1b51eb3e9eafeb91c84180a9d11105?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/127405e9f8f9272ac5748796e7ddc8013e1b51eb3e9eafeb91c84180a9d11105?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"John Mansir"},"url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/author\/jmansirfwhtlaw-com\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5060","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5060"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5060\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5075,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5060\/revisions\/5075"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3517"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}