PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Damage/Loss / “Voluntary” ≠ “Obligatory”: Good Deeds Do Not Trigger Coverage

“Voluntary” ≠ “Obligatory”: Good Deeds Do Not Trigger Coverage

November 25, 2014 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

William Mulready's Train Up A ChildLiability policies typically provide coverage for amounts the insured “become[s] legally obligated to pay”—but they leave open the question of how that obligation should be determined.  Judgments and settlements clearly create “legal obligations.”  Sometimes, a statute can, too: several courts require insurers to pay for remediation efforts mandated by environmental laws, even if government authorities have not yet ordered any action at the polluted site. But the “obligation” is more attenuated when an insured tries to head off potential tort liability with voluntary measures.  Last month, in Busch Properties, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, (E.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2014), a federal court in Missouri ruled that “potential legal liability,” without more, does not establish legal obligation.  A “voluntary payment of alleged damages” may be praiseworthy, the court held, but it is not reimbursable.

A Yellow Smell

Kingsmill Resort is a gated, residential golf community in Williamsburg, Virginia.  The resort includes nearly 200 condominiums, built between 1982 and 1992, many of which were sold to non-resident owners.  Busch Properties, Inc. (BPI), administered a rental program for those owners and acted as property manager.

BPI required that owners in the rental program have vinyl wallpaper in their units—vinyl wallpaper being common in the resort industry at the time.  But in 2003, BPI learned the hard way that impermeable vinyl wallpaper can prevent water in the walls from escaping—leading to significant mold growth.  In October of that year, a mirror fell off a wall in one of the units, revealing “crumbling drywall and a wall full of mold.”

Believing it faced significant exposure from claims by unit owners and resort guests, who could allege either property damage or bodily injury from the mold, BPI decided to remediate the mold proactively  In October 2003, BPI notified condominium owners that it had discovered “a significant amount of mold, mildew and moisture damage,” which it attributed to excessive rainfall and a recent hurricane, accompanied by a power outage.  BPI required all owners to execute a Consent and Authorization form, which stated that mold would be abated at no cost to the owners.  The Consent form also declared, however, that “it did not obligate” BPI to proceed with the abatement, and that BPI did not admit liability for the mold.  None of the owners was required to release any claim against BPI.

BPI began remediating the property in November 2003, and it completed the project by June or July 2004.  The total cost was approximately $11.3 million

Cover Me

BPI had purchased an Umbrella Liability Policy from National Union for the period from September 1, 1994, to July 1, 2003 (1994 Policy), and a Commercial Umbrella Policy for the period from July 1, 2003, to July 1, 2004 (2003 Policy).  The 1994 Policy provided that National Union would pay those sums “which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages for liability imposed upon the Insured by law, or liability assumed by the Insured under contract.”  The 2003 Policy provided coverage for amounts ” that the Insured becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law or assumed by the Insured under an Insured Contract because of . . . Property Damage.”

BPI sought coverage under both policies for its remediation costs, but National Union declined coverage, on the ground that BPI had not been legally obligated to pay those costs.  BPI sued.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished; Some Go Unreimbursed

Addressing the parties’ motions for summary judgment, the district court acknowledged that “Missouri law . . . recognizes a claim and a settlement agreement as sufficient to establish that an insured is ‘legally obligated to pay damages.'”  Similarly, “courts with the broadest view of ‘legally obligated to pay as damages’ require the insured to show potential liability and a reasonable, good faith settlement agreement.”  The only exceptions, the court found, are environmental clean-up cases, where remediation is mandated by statute or regulation.

On the other hand, the court held, “potential legal liability and voluntary payment of alleged damages[,] without release or settlement” are insufficient to create a “legal obligation” within the meaning of the policy.

In marking off these parameters, the court didn’t condemn BPI’s generosity, but it did suggest that insureds can’t be generous with someone else’s money:

Requiring a settled claim … serves the purpose of providing the insurer with an opportunity to investigate and weigh in on the claim and protect the insurer’s interest as established by the insurance policy…

[I]t would be unreasonable for an insured to be able to unilaterally obligate an insurer to pay damages where there has been no protection of the insurer’s interest.

BPI did not settle any potential or formal claims or lawsuits; no property owners even threatened a claim related to the mold, and BPI did not release any claims.  The remediation costs also did not constitute “liability assumed by the Insured under contract,” since the Consent form that BPI had the owners sign stated expressly that it did not obligate BPI to carry out the mold abatement.  The court concluded:  “Without a settled claim or a settlement or judgment arising from a lawsuit, BPI cannot show it was ‘legally obligated to pay be reason of liability imposed by law.'”

Be Nice!

BPI is not a counter-parable, teaching insureds to avoid virtuous conduct.  The lesson of BPI is only that insurers shouldn’t be left out of the insured’s generous plans.  Voluntary remediation programs can often serve the interests of both the insured and the insurer; unilateral action does not.

William Mulready (Wikimedia)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Apartment Complexity: Appellate Court Sorts Out Multiple Coverage Claims for Construction of Uninhabitable Residence

Next Article »

Et tu, Buddy?: When Excess Insurers Sue for Bad Faith

About Heidi Hudson Raschke

Heidi Raschke is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida. Connect with Heidi on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. The Limits of the Real: Narrow Readings of Policy Terms put Losses in a Virtual Realm
  2. If the Suit Fits: A Washington Court Clarifies Triggers for the Duty to Defend
  3. Apartment Complexity: Appellate Court Sorts Out Multiple Coverage Claims for Construction of Uninhabitable Residence
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law
  • Texas Appeals Court Finds Project Owner Excluded From Coverage as Claimants’ Statutory Employer

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing