RISKVUE ARCHIVE | FEATURE STORIES

Evaluating Key Coverage Issues For Negligent Misrepresentation Claims

By Mary E. Borja and Paul J. Haase

Introduction

Claims arising from allegedly defective construction or faulty repair work often include allegations of negligent misrepresentation. Typically, the claims allege that a contractor or subcontractor negligently misrepresented the quality of the construction or repairs or the types of materials that would be used by the contractor or subcontractor. Such claims are often accompanied by breach of contract, breach of warranty, and fraud claims. In evaluating the availability of coverage for a negligent misrepresentation claim, some people hastily — and incorrectly — conclude with little or no analysis that the claim is covered. Policyholders often argue that solely because the claim includes the term “negligence,” coverage is necessarily triggered. Upon closer analysis, though, most claims for negligent misrepresentation will not trigger coverage. First, to fall within the scope of a general liability policy’s insuring agreement, a claim generally needs to be for “bodily injury” or “property damage” as defined in the policy. A negligent “misrepresentation,” by itself, is highly unlikely to cause “bodily injury” or “property damage.” Second, where the negligent misrepresentation claim is part of a general assertion that the policyholder failed to meet its contractual obligations, as is often the case, the claim would not allege an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy.

Only a few cases address whether insurance coverage is available for a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Most of these cases address alleged misrepresentations by a property seller to the buyer. However, these cases highlight two key issues that often determine whether insurance coverage is available: whether the negligent misrepresentation claim (1) causes “property damage” under the policy; and (2) arises from an “occurrence” under the policy.

The Harm Allegedly Caused By Negligent Misrepresentation Is Not Property Damage

Most general liability insurance policies define “property damage” as physical injury to tangible property or loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. A claim for negligent misrepresentation characteristically alleges that economic losses arose out of the misrepresentation. Courts generally agree that purely economic losses are not “property damage” within the meaning of liability insurance contracts. Therefore, a negligent misrepresentation claim is not covered under a general liability insurance policy to the extent that the negligent misrepresentation is not alleged to cause physical injury to or loss of use to tangible property. In those cases where some property damage may otherwise actually exist, the negligent misrepresentation itself did not actually cause the property damage, and therefore, the negligent misrepresentation claim and damages flowing from other aspects of that dispute are not covered.

In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Miller, a federal district court concluded that as a matter of law, claims for negligent misrepresentation were not covered under a homeowners’ policy. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 743 F. Supp. 723 (N.D. Cal. 1990). The claims in Allstate arose during the sale of a condominium in which the seller, the policyholder, allegedly misrepresented that there were no defects in the property and no pending lawsuits affecting the property. Before entering into the real estate contract, purchaser discovered various defects in the property and a pending lawsuit the condominium had filed against the construction company for multiple defects. The purchaser brought suit against the seller/policyholder for the alleged misrepresentations in addition to a breach of contract claim. The policyholder tendered the claim to his insurer under a homeowners’ policy which defined “property damage” as the “physical injury to or destruction of tangible property, including loss of its use.” Id. at 724-25 (internal quotations omitted). The insurer subsequently brought a declaratory judgment action contending that there was no duty to defend or indemnify because the policy did not cover damages for purely economic losses flowing from a negligent misrepresentation or breach of contract claim.

The federal district court determined that “the only damages recoverable on the claim for negligent misrepresentation will be economic loss.” Id. Because “[s]uch damages have repeatedly been held to be outside the plain meaning of the policy which limits recovery to bodily injury and property damage, defined as ‘physical injury to or destruction to tangible property[,]’” the court concluded that the economic loss was “simply not within the [insurer’s] policy’s coverage of tangible property damage.” Id. at 727 (quoting Fresno Econ. Import Used Cars, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 142 Cal. Rptr. 681 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)).

Various other courts also have held that the damages resulting from a claim of negligent misrepresentation are purely economic losses and that, therefore, there can be no coverage under a liability policy:

• In St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Lippincott, 287 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2002), the Eighth Circuit determined that the negligent misrepresentation concerning structural damage during a home’s sale did not cause any property damage within the meaning of a homeowner’s insurance policy, and therefore, coverage was not available for the claim. The court held that the losses alleged in the underlying complaint were merely pecuniary, and thus, intangible. The policy defined property damaged as “physical or material, loss or destruction of property.” Id. at 705. The court determined that, although there was structural damage to the house, the flaws predated the misrepresentations by the policyholder. Thus, because the underlying damages were economic, they did not fall within the meaning of property damage under the policy.
  
• A federal court in Kansas held in Safeco Insurance Co. v. Tozier, No. 93-2453-GTV, 1994 WL 476304 (D. Kan. Aug. 16, 1994), that economic losses resulting from the policyholder’s alleged negligent misrepresentation did not constitute “property damage” under a homeowners’ policy. The court stated that, where “the losses claimed in the underlying suit relate[] to intangible rather than intangible property...no property damage has occurred” under the policy. Id. at *11. The court concluded that economic losses caused by the alleged misrepresentation by the policyholder “do not constitute property damage as contemplated by the insurance agreement.” Id. at *13.
  
• In Fresno Economy Import Used Cars, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 142 Cal. Rptr. 681 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977), a California appellate court held that the insurer had no duty to defend its policyholder where the policyholder negligently misrepresented the mileage on automobiles it sold to the claimants. The court determined that the misrepresentations made did not cause the injury or damage to the automobiles, even though the misrepresentations affected their value. The court ruled that the loss of value did not “constitute an ‘injury to or destruction of tangible personal property’ as defined in the policy,” and thus the insurer had no duty to defend the policyholder. Id. at 685.

Other courts have held that coverage is not available for negligent misrepresentation claims because the alleged misrepresentations are not the actual cause of any property damage at issue. For example, in Hess v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 00AP-167, 2000 WL 1528611 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2000), the court held that alleged negligent misrepresentations about the conditions of a home prior to sale were made after the property damage occurred, and thus did not cause any actual property damage under a homeowner’s policy. The policyholders allegedly made representations in connection with the sale of a house concerning the structural integrity of the house. The purchaser subsequently discovered evidence of “significant termite infestation.” Id. at *3. The purchaser filed suit against the sellers asserting a claim for negligent misrepresentation. The sellers tendered the claim to their insurer under a homeowners’ policy and an umbrella policy which provided coverage for “a claim [] made or a suit [] brought against any insured for damages because of bodily injury, personal injury, or property damage arising out of an occurrence.” Id. at *5. After the insurer denied the claim, the sellers filed a declaratory action.

Evaluating the allegations in the underlying claim, the court concluded that the alleged misrepresentations pertained to the conditions of the home as they existed prior to the sale. The court determined that the damages suffered by the purchasers were purely economic in nature and did not arise from the termite damage but from the policyholders’ material misstatements. The court found that “[t]he property damage had already occurred at the time the [purchasers ] alleged [the sellers] committed the acts that would cause [the sellers] to be liable.” Id. at *9. The court concluded that the “misrepresentation alleged in [the underlying claim] did not cause the termite (property) damages, rather the alleged misrepresentation occurred during the sale of the property and after the termite damage had already occurred.” Id. at *14. The court thus held that the “damages suffered by the [third-party] as a result of the purchase of the property...[did] not constitute ‘property damage’ within the meaning of the insurance policies.” Id.

Other courts likewise have held that a negligent misrepresentation does not cause potentially covered property damage, and therefore does not trigger insurance coverage:

• In State Farm Lloyds v. Kessler, 932 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996), a state intermediate appellate court held that false statements about drainage and foundation problems made in connection with the home’s sale did not cause property damage under a homeowner’s insurance policy. There, the policy defined “property damage” as the “injury to, destruction of, or loss of use of property.” Id. at 734. The court stated that the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the property damage because those defects were preexisting. The court concluded that the claimants alleged economic damages in order “to restore the property to the condition at which the [policyholders] represented it and loss of use and enjoyment because of the [policyholders’] allegedly wrongful conduct.” Id. at 737. Because the underlying allegations only involved economic damages arising out of the policyholders’ alleged negligent misrepresentations, the court ruled that there was no coverage under the policy.
  
• In SCA Disposal Services of New England, Inc. v. Central National Insurance Company, No. 900393C, 1994 WL 879687 (Mass. Super. Ct. Apr. 12, 1994), the court held that an insurer did not have a duty to defend its policyholder in a suit involving negligent misrepresentation claims because there was “no causal connection between [the] alleged misrepresentations...and the property damage.” Id. at *12. One of the underlying claims alleged misrepresentations made by the policyholder in connection with a lease regarding the presence of hazardous waste at a landfill and the policyholder’s ability to obtain the relevant permits and insurance to conduct operations at the landfill. Relying on Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cotter, 522 N.E.2d 1013 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988), the court stated that “[l]osses caused by the [policyholder’s] alleged negligent misrepresentations...are not damages because of...property damage caused by an occurrence covered by a liability policy.” SCA, at *11 (internal quotations omitted). The court further determined that “there is no coverage for misrepresentations which do not cause bodily injury or property damage ‘independent of conditions or acts which are themselves the consequence of negligence.’” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The court concluded that because the property damage existed independent from the alleged misrepresentations, there was no causal link between the claim for negligent misrepresentation and the property damage, and therefore no coverage under the policy.
  

A few courts, however, have determined that under certain circumstances a negligent misrepresentation may give rise to property damage where the misrepresentation is alleged to have caused loss of use of tangible property. For example, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in First State Bank of Wyoming v. American Casualty Co., No. C4-93-2527, 1994 WL 193751 (Minn. Ct. App. May 11, 1994), ruled that, because the claimants allegedly lost the use of several pieces of property as a result of the policyholder’s negligent misrepresentations, “a claim for ‘loss of use of other’s property that hasn’t been physically damaged [] is arguably covered” under a general liability policy. The policy at issue defined property damage as “any damage to tangible property of others...[t]his [also] includes loss of use of the damaged property resulting from the damage.” Id. at *6. The court determined that, based on the policyholder’s false statements, the claimants ultimately lost their property and the use of the other property due to foreclosure. The court reasoned that “’loss of use of tangible property’ includes loss of real property by foreclosure.” Id. at *7. Therefore, the court held, the insurer had a duty to defend the policyholder for the underlying claim of negligent misrepresentation.

In Smith v. Katz, 595 N.W.2d 345 (Wis. 1999), the court held that an insurer had no duty to defend its policyholder where the underlying complaint alleged that the policyholder made untrue representation or omitted material facts about the true condition of a vacant lot purchased by the claimants from the policyholder. When the claimants attempted to construct a house on the lot, they discovered underground springs which caused the foundation to collapse repeatedly during construction and caused groundwater pressure that allegedly cracked the foundation walls after the house was completed. The court concluded that there was no coverage for the negligent misrepresentation claims because the complaint did not explicitly or implicitly allege that the misrepresentations cause “property damage.” The court recognized the “majority view” that “misrepresentations and omissions do not produce ‘property damage’ as defined in insurance policies.” The court, however, noted in dicta that “’property damage’ can include ‘loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.’”

Recently, some courts have held that it was irrelevant whether the negligent misrepresentation actually caused any property damage in considering the issue of insurance coverage, as long as some property was damaged. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 74 P.3d 294 (Colo. 2003); Murrer v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. C0-02-1772, 2003 WL 1875514 (Minn. Ct. App. April 15, 2003).

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in Cyprus Amax Minerals that coverage was available for negligent misrepresentations made in connection with the sale of a mine, regardless whether they caused property damage within the meaning of a general liability policy, so long as some property damage could be discerned and the policyholder was liable for same. In Cyprus Amax, after the claimant purchased the mine, it discovered that portions of the slope at the mine were sustaining subsurface movement. The ground movement allegedly required substantial remediation and rendered the property worthless. The claimant sued the seller, which sought defense and indemnity from its insurers. The insurers disclaimed liability. In the subsequent insurance coverage litigation, the court granted the insurers’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the underlying complaint did not fall within the scope of coverage. The appellate court affirmed, holding that “there [was] no causal connection between the alleged misrepresentations and the physical damage; the only causal connection is between [the policyholder’s] misrepresentations and [the claimant’s] economic losses.” Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 55 P.2d 200, 203 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Colorado Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, concluding that the general liability policies at issue did not require a causal connection between the misrepresentation and any property damage.[1] The court relied, in part, on a completed operations provision which suggested that property damage could result from “reliance upon a representation or warranty.” Cyprus Amax, 74 P.3d at 307. Construing the policy as a whole, the court concluded that: “To hold that a misrepresentation cannot, under any circumstances, cause or lead to property damage vitiates this provision. This is not acceptable....” Id.

In Murrer, an individual sold a home in which the gas dryer had been disconnected and removed. The gas line that supplied propane to the dryer was not capped. Instead, the gas supply to the house was turned off. When the purchaser discovered that the pilot light in the gas stove was out, he called the gas company. The gas company repairman opened the gas valve which caused gas to flow to the uncapped gas line for the dryer. A resulting explosion damaged the home. The home buyer’s insurer paid the home buyer and brought a subrogation action against the seller, alleging that the seller negligently sold the house without disclosing the uncapped gas line and that the negligent failure to disclose caused the explosion. The seller’s insurer disclaimed on the grounds that the negligent misrepresentation was not an occurrence.

The court acknowledged that, under Minnesota law, “a negligent misrepresentation is not an occurrence for the purpose of a general liability insurance policy.” Id. at *2 (citation omitted). Moreover, the insurer had expressly excluded negligent misrepresentation from its definition of “occurrence.” However, the court concluded that there would be no coverage only where the negligent misrepresentation was the cause of the property damage. Here, because the explosion from the gas line existed apart from the negligent misrepresentation, and the negligent misrepresentation “merely contributed to the explosion,” the court concluded that coverage was available. The court rejected the insurer’s argument that coverage was not available because, but for the insured’s alleged negligent misrepresentation, the insured would not have been implicated in the underlying suit.

The foregoing cases illustrate the importance of a close analysis of the claimed damages at issue and, more specifically, the causation of any damages allegedly flowing from the alleged negligent misrepresentations. Where the alleged negligent misrepresentation causes only pure economic loss — as often is the case — then no coverage should exist for the negligent misrepresentation claim, regardless of the invocation of the term “negligence.”

Negligent Misrepresentations Are No Accident

Often, coverage is not available for negligent misrepresentation claims because, even though the alleged misrepresentation is not fraudulent, it is nonetheless not accidental. For example, a false representation as to the types of materials used for a construction or repair project may not be considered an occurrence because the contractor’s act of making the representation to the homeowner was not unexpected.

Courts typically define the tort of negligent misrepresentation as a false statement that brings about “a pecuniary loss [] caused by justifiable reliance on [those] statement[s].” Tschimperle v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 529 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Augenblick v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 99-3419, 1999 WL 975118 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 1999) (defining negligent misrepresentation as false representations negligently made or as the failure to disclose material facts); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 743 F. Supp. 723, 726 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (classifying negligent misrepresentation as a type of fraud and defining it as “the ‘assertion as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true’” and “the ‘suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact.’”) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1572 and 1710).

Most general liability policies provide coverage for property damage that is caused by “an occurrence” that takes place during the policy period. Therefore, coverage does not exist for any claim that does not arise from an “occurrence” as defined by the policy. General liability polices often define an “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”

Courts addressing whether a negligent misrepresentation claim constitutes a potentially covered “occurrence” often conclude that it does not. As one court explained: “negligence and negligent misrepresentation does not constitute an ‘accident’...[w]hile negligence often leads to an accident, negligent behavior is not itself an ‘accident.’” United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Dealers Leasing, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (D. Kan. 2001); see also Couch on Insurance § 126:26 (3d ed.) (stating that “[t]he word ‘accident’ implies a misfortune with concomitant damage to a victim, and not negligence which eventually results in that misfortune.”). Under this view, negligent misrepresentation is akin to fraud or breach of contract, and therefore does not constitute an occurrence within the meaning of a general liability policy.

In Dealers Leasing, a federal trial court determined that, where a used car company negligently misrepresented the prior history of a minivan, the misrepresentations did not “fit[] the generally accepted definition of ‘accident’” under a general liability policy. Id. at 1262. The underlying complaint in Dealers Leasing alleged that the policyholder, the used car company, welded two vehicles together to create the minivan, did not reveal the true mileage of the minivan, and “did not disclose the minivan’s ‘wreck damage, reconstruction history or innumerable problems.’” Id. at 1258. The used car company requested that its insurer defend the claim and indemnify it for any judgment. The insurer declined coverage. After the used car company settled the case, the insurer filed a lawsuit seeking a judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify.

Examining the allegations in the complaint, the court stated that “[n]egligent conduct itself is not an undesigned, sudden, or unexpected event of an afflictive or unfortunate character, but often the cause of such an event.” Id. at 1262. Additionally, the court noted that “the complaint [did] not allege that negligence or negligent misrepresentation by [the policyholder] caused the damage to the minivan.” Id. at 1261. The court determined that the damage to the minivan occurred as a result of the prior wreck and negligent repair. The court, therefore, did “not believe that the alleged negligent behavior, including negligent misrepresentations, fit[] the generally accepted definition of ‘accident.’” Id.

Many other courts have similarly concluded in varied circumstances that negligent misrepresentations do not constitute an accident or “occurrence”:

• In Nova Casualty Co. v. Able Construction, Inc., 983 P.2d 575 (Utah 1999), the Supreme Court of Utah held that a negligent misrepresentation could not be defined as an accident, and thus were not an occurrence under a general liability policy. In this case, the developer told the buyers of a new home that the subdivision’s restrictive covenants would not interfere with their home-based psychotherapy business. The court determined that the negligent misrepresentation was “intentionally made with the purpose of inducing the actions taken by the buyers,” and therefore, no coverage existed for any consequential damages. Id. at 580.
  
• A state intermediate appellate court, in Tschimperle v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 529 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), ruled that statements negligently misrepresenting the value and place of equipment to an investor did not constitute an accident under a general liability policy. The court stated that “[a] claim for negligent misrepresentation requires that a pecuniary loss be caused by justifiable reliance on a statement [and]...[n]egligent misrepresentations cannot be ‘accidents’ because the insured intends to induce reliance on the statement.” Id. at 424. The court further stated that, because of this intent, there can be no unexpected or unforeseen event, and therefore no occurrence.
  
• In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Chaney, 804 F. Supp. 1219 (N.D. Cal. 1992), a federal court ruled that the negligent misrepresentation of certain facts in the sale of a home did not constitute an occurrence under a homeowner’s insurance policy because “negligent misrepresentation ‘falls within the rubric of fraud and not ordinary negligence,’” and thus constitutes an intentional act which is neither unexpected nor unintended. The court, quoting Safeco Insurance Co. v. Andrews, 915 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1990), stated that “negligent misrepresentations made in conjunction with the sale of property did not qualify as an ‘accident’ for insurance coverage purposes.” Id. at 1221. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 806 F. Supp. 1460 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (finding that negligent misrepresentations made during the sale of a home are not an occurrence or accident under a homeowner’s policy); Miller v. W. Gen. Agency, Inc., 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (same); M.L. Foss, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 885 P.2d 284 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994) (same) (disapproved of by Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 02SC247, 2003 WL 21373218 (Colo. June 16, 2003)).
  

In contrast, a few courts have simply considered the use of the term “negligent” in a negligent misrepresentation cause of action, and summarily concluded that the “occurrence” requirement was met. In Smith v. Katz, 595 N.W.2d 345 (Wis. 1999), the policyholder was a developer of a lot, who allegedly neglected to inform the purchaser of underground springs on the lot, which caused the foundation of a building built on the lot to crack. The insurer intervened in the underlying suit and sought a declaratory judgment that there was no duty to defend or indemnify the developer. The liability policy at issue defined “property damage” as “’physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property’ of ‘loss of use of tangible property.’” Id. at 348.

While recognizing that misrepresentations do not actually cause property damage, the court determined that negligent misrepresentations are simply another form of negligence which constitutes an “accident.” The court stated “the ultimate inquiry is whether the resulting damage is ‘an event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation.’” Id. at 356. Thus, according to the Katz court, if the negligent misrepresentation results in damage that was unexpected, then an “accident” has occurred under the policy. Further, the court defined “accident” as “an unexpected, undesirable event” or “an unforeseen incident.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Therefore, the court concluded that “a reasonable [policyholder] would expect the [p]olicy provision defining ‘event’ to include negligent acts.” Id.

Some courts also have strained to focus solely on the term “negligence,” without regard to whether the harm was truly foreseeable or part of a breach of other contractual obligations of the insured. For example, in Wood v. Safeco Insurance Co., 980 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998), a state intermediate appellate court ruled that coverage existed under a personal umbrella policy for negligent misrepresentations made during the sale of a home because the negligent conduct constituted an occurrence. The court, stated that “while the claim [for negligent misrepresentation] includes an element that the [policyholder] intend to induce reliance on the misrepresentation, ‘the falsity in the statement and the resulting injury or damage may be accidental’ and the claim should be treated ‘like other forms of negligence.’” Id. at 52. The court further determined that a claim for negligent misrepresentation constitutes an accident because this interpretation would “comport[] with a reasonable person’s expectation of liability coverage...[which] is designed to protect the [policyholder] from fortuitous injury caused by his actions.” Id. at 50 (internal quotations omitted).

These cases illustrate the importance of analyzing not only the issue of whether property damage was allegedly caused by the alleged negligent misrepresentation, but also whether the negligent misrepresentation itself fairly constitutes an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy. Too often, these issues are overlooked when the talismanic term “negligence” is involved as part of the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Conclusion

Because recovery under most insurance policies requires some element of property damage, a negligent misrepresentation claim likely is not covered. Coverage should not be available for a negligent misrepresentation claim where there is no property damage, but only economic loss, or where there is no causal link between the alleged misrepresentation and any property damage.

In addition, analysis of a negligent misrepresentation claim should not ignore the policy requirement that property damage arise from an “occurrence,” or overlook the possibility that the alleged misrepresentation is part of or akin to an alleged breach of contract, and for that reason not truly an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy. 

Notes
1 Although the claimant in the underlying suit had specifically stated that “no personal injury or property damage is alleged in the Second Amended Complaint...[The claimant] alleges injury to the value of the stock (and various elements of associated damages), and not injury to its ‘property[,]’” the court nonetheless concluded that a reference to “various elements of associated damage” was sufficient to create at least a question of material fact concerning whether the claim was for “property damage.”

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Mary E. Borja is a partner in Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP’s litigation and insurance practices and specializesin complex litigation and arbitration involving insurance law and commercial disputes. Paul J. Haase is an associate in the firm’s litigation and insurance practices. This article was originally published in Mealey’s “Litigation Reports: Construction Defects,” November 12, 2003. Reprinted with permission.

riskVue | The webzine for risk management professionals
July 2004