Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Bad Faith Indemnity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
G & G Builders challenges dismissal of bad‑faith and extra‑contractual claims
Summary
G & G argued the court should allow extra‑contractual claims (breach of contract, UTPA and bad faith) stemming from insurers' alleged refusals to defend; opposing counsel said G & G was defended and indemnified in large part and precedent (Soaring Eagle) bars bad‑faith claims where insured was defended and indemnified.
G & G Builders urged the panel to allow claims for breach of contract, bad faith and attorney‑fees that it says flowed from insurers' repeated refusals to defend and indemnify on discrete subcontractor claims. Counsel said G & G incurred out‑of‑pocket attorney fees compelling other carriers to participate and that the record shows gaps in defense for certain subcontractor work, notably the drywall and stonework at issue.
Opposing counsel for Builders/Premier Mutual argued G & G was defended and ultimately indemnified for the claims at issue and invoked Soaring Eagle (and related memoranda) to contend that extra‑contractual claims are barred when an insured receives a defense and indemnity. The bench focused on whether any period of uncompensated exposure occurred, the timing of joinder of subcontractor insurers, and whether settlement consideration given by G & G at mediation constitutes a waiver or was necessary consideration. The argument concluded and the panel took the appeals under submission.
