Home Page The Publication The Editor Contact Information Insurance Key issues Book Subscribe

Vol. 4, Iss. 12
December 16, 2015

C. Brewer and Co., Ltd. v. Marine Indemnity Ins. Co., 347 P.3d 163 (Hawaii 2015)

Designated Premises Endorsement: Insurers Need To Consider A Change


I have never been one of those people who believes that, anytime an insurer is told by a court that it must provide coverage, that it didn’t believe was owed, the insurer needs to amend its policy language. That is simply not feasible or sensible. There are myriad reasons why an insurer may lose a case. And one lose on an issue, or even a few, may not be a reflection of the policy’s ability, in the grand scheme, to do its intended job.

But sometimes a decision comes along, especially from a state high court, involving an important policy provision, that is interpreted so far afield from its intent, and with reasoning that other courts may find easy to adopt, that insurers need to take a hard look at whether a change is in order. The Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in C. Brewer and Co., Ltd. v. Marine Indemnity Ins. Co., addressing the interpretation of a Designated Premises Endorsement, is in the return-to-the-drawing-board category. There is more to the decision than I’ll discuss here. But the following will make the point.

In March 2006, a large portion of the Kaloko Dam in Hawaii collapsed, releasing over three million gallons of water. It caused the loss of seven lives and extensive property damage. At the time of the dam breach, James Pflueger owned the dam. Pflueger filed suit seeking damages and indemnification from C. Brewer and Company, Ltd. According to the Pflueger complaint, C. Brewer sold him the dam, allegedly aware of the dam’s questionable structural stability. C. Brewer then filed a complaint, against seventeen insurance companies, seeking various rulings on coverage.

Particularly at issue here was coverage under a James River Insurance Company CGL policy, in effect at the time of the dam breach. Putting aside certain lower court rulings, the issue before the Supreme Court was the applicability of a Designated Premises Endorsement. Specifically, James River argued that the policy’s DPE limited coverage to liability “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, and use of the [designated] premises.” And, most importantly, the dam site was not listed as a designated premises.

It seems pretty clear, right? And I have no doubt that James River thought so too. But C. Brewer didn’t. And neither did the court. In fact, the court also saw the issue as a pretty clear one. The court agreed with C. Brewer that the “policy provides coverage for injury and damage arising out of its ‘use’ of its corporate headquarters to make negligent corporate decisions [the HQ was a designated premise] even though the resulting damage happened at the unlisted Dam site.” I know. It’s breathtaking.

The court’s decision was tied to its conclusion that “arising out of” is “ordinarily understood to mean ‘originating from,’ ‘having its origin in,’ ‘growing out of,’ or ‘flowing from.’ In the insurance context, this phrase is often interpreted to require a causal connection between the injuries alleged and the objects made subject to the phrase.”

The court also supported its decision in this way: “James River seeks to rewrite the term ‘arising out of’ to limit liability to injury and damage occurring on designated premises. Such a construction of the DPE would effectively convert the James River policy from a CGL policy to a premises liability policy that limits coverage to certain premises. James River’s argument contradicts the policy, which specifically states that it is a ‘commercial general liability’ policy.” (emphasis in original).

The court had more reasons for its decision. The policy’s inclusion of “personal and advertising injury” in the DPE means that “decisions made at C. Brewer’s corporate headquarters would likely be the cause of any advertising injury; however, the resulting injury would not occur on designated premises.” Lastly, “the James River policy’s broad coverage territory similarly encompasses the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and, under certain circumstances, other parts of the world.”

Even if there are aspects of the policy or facts at issue here that are unique – no two cases are ever exactly alike; and here the facts and policy language weren’t so unique – C. Brewer is a significant decision for insurers that seek to limit their CGL coverage to liability ON designated premises. That is certainly what James River thought it was selling to C. Brewer. The idea that its policy provided coverage, for injury and damage arising out of its insured’s “use” of its corporate headquarters (a designated premise) to make negligent corporate decisions that resulted in damage happening at a non-designated premise, was surely not the intent of the DPW. Not even close. Given that it is not difficult to see other courts finding this argument attractive, Aloha insurers if you use DPEs.

Website by Balderrama Design Copyright Randy Maniloff All Rights Reserved