Standard Pacific of the Carolinas, LLC v. Amerisure Insurance , 500 F. App'x 237 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-1444
    STANDARD PACIFIC OF THE CAROLINAS, LLC,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendant – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (0:10-cv-01620-JFA)
    Argued:   September 19, 2012                 Decided:   December 19, 2012
    Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and Max O. COGBURN,
    Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of
    North Carolina, sitting by designation.
    Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Payton Dwight Hoover, DEAN & GIBSON, Charlotte, North Carolina,
    for Appellant. Tracy Lynn Eggleston, COZEN O'CONNOR, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Standard Pacific of the Carolinas, LLC (“Standard Pacific”)
    brought       this     action       against       Amerisure        Insurance     Company
    (“Amerisure”), seeking a declaration of its rights to a defense
    and indemnity under an “additional insured” endorsement in an
    insurance policy.           The district court granted summary judgment
    to Amerisure on Standard Pacific’s claim, concluding that the
    endorsement did not clearly require the insurer to provide “your
    work” coverage.         In our view, however, the district court read
    the endorsement too narrowly.                 Rather, construing the policy in
    favor    of    the   insured,   we     hold       that    it    provides    coverage   to
    Standard Pacific.          Accordingly, we reverse.
    I.
    A.
    On June 21, 2008, Terry Shortt fell off his bicycle and
    broke    his    back    after   encountering             an    allegedly    deteriorated
    section of an asphalt walking path in the common area of Ridge
    Point Community in Rock Hill, South Carolina.                          Standard Pacific,
    formerly known as Westfield Homes of the Carolinas, LLC, was the
    developer      of    the    Ridge    Point        Community      project.       Standard
    Pacific hired Matthews Construction Company, Inc. (“Matthews”)
    as the general contractor for the project pursuant to a “Land
    Development-Construction               Agreement”               (the       “Agreement”).
    2
    Amerisure was Matthews’s insurer.                Matthews completed its work
    at the Ridge Point community in August 2004, about four years
    before Shortt’s accident.
    Shortt sued Standard Pacific, Matthews, and others in South
    Carolina state court, alleging that they jointly and severally
    breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in designing,
    developing, constructing, managing, and maintaining the walking
    path    to    prevent    dangerous      and    hidden      conditions.       Standard
    Pacific in turn filed a separate state suit in South Carolina
    seeking,      among   other    relief,    the    court’s      declaration        of   the
    relative rights and obligations of the parties under the terms
    of     an    insurance    policy     issued     by      Amerisure     to    Matthews.
    Amerisure subsequently removed the case to the United States
    District Court for the District of South Carolina.
    B.
    Amerisure issued a Commercial General Liability Insurance
    Policy to Matthews, effective from January 1, 2008, to January
    1, 2009.      The policy had a general aggregate limit of $2,000,000
    and     a    “products-completed         operations”        aggregate       limit      of
    $2,000,000.       J.A.    112.     The    policy     included     a   “Contractor’s
    Blanket      Additional       Insured    Endorsement.”           J.A.      28.        The
    endorsement      provided     coverage    under      the    policy    to   additional
    parties whom Matthews was required to insure by “written contact
    3
    or agreement.”         The endorsement limited the coverage of such
    additional parties to liability arising out of:
    (a) Premises you own, rent, lease, or occupy, or
    (b)   Your  ongoing operations    performed   for that
    additional insured, unless the written contract or
    agreement or the certificate of insurance requires
    “your work” coverage (or wording to that same effect)
    in which case the coverage provided shall extend to
    “your work” for that additional insured.
    Id. (emphasis added).          The policy defined “your work” as “[w]ork
    or operations by you or on your behalf” and “[m]aterials, parts
    or    equipment      furnished     in    connection        with    such     work     or
    operations.”       J.A. 105.
    The     Agreement,      which     predated       the    insurance         policy,
    contained several provisions relevant to this appeal.                      First, it
    required Matthews to furnish Standard Pacific with a certificate
    from a licensed insurance company showing that (1) Matthews had
    in    effect   a   policy    of   general      liability      insurance     providing
    coverage     at    least   equivalent     to    the    1986    Commercial        General
    Liability      Insurance     policy, 1    with    at     least    “a   $500,000.000
    Products/Completed         Operations    Aggregate       Limit,”    J.A.    184,     and
    (2)   Standard     Pacific’s      predecessor,        Westfield    Homes    of     North
    Carolina, was an additional insured under the policy.                      Id.
    1
    The 1986 Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy is
    a standard form insurance policy created by the Insurance
    Services Organization.
    4
    Second, the Agreement required Matthews to:
    “indemnify,   defend   and   hold   harmless  [o]wner,
    [c]onstruction [m]anager and the owner of the Site . .
    . from and against any and all claims, loss, damage or
    expense (including attorneys’ fees and other costs of
    defense incurred by [o]wner in defending against any
    claims or in enforcing this indemnity and defense
    obligation) arising out of or in connection with the
    performance of the [w]ork.”
    Id.
    C.
    Standard       Pacific       moved    for        “Partial       Judgment       on     the
    Pleadings/Summary           Judgment”       regarding          Amerisure’s          insurance
    coverage and duty to defend.                J.A. 350-56.            The district court
    denied      the    motion    and     instead         sua    sponte      granted       summary
    judgment     to     Amerisure.        The       court       noted     that,     “the      plain
    language of the insurance policy allows for ‘your work’ coverage
    for   the     additional       insured      only       when     a     written       agreement
    requires it explicitly or with equivalent language.”                                J.A. 559.
    The court reviewed the Agreement between Standard Pacific and
    Matthews      and     concluded       that           “[n]owhere       in      the      ‘Work,’
    ‘Protection of Work,’ or ‘Indemnity’ sections [of the Agreement]
    does Matthews agree to provide the equivalent to ‘your work’
    coverage.”          J.A.    558.      And       to    the    extent     that     there      was
    ambiguity     as    to     what    type    of       coverage    was    required        by   the
    5
    Agreement, the district court concluded that any ambiguity was
    to be construed against Standard Pacific as the drafter. 2
    Standard Pacific moved for reconsideration of the district
    court’s    order,     which     the   court       denied.      After       voluntarily
    dismissing,      without     prejudice,     its    remaining       claims,   Standard
    Pacific timely appealed.
    II.
    We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo,
    applying       the   same    standard      applied    by     the   district     court.
    Overstreet v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co., 
    950 F.2d 931
    , 938
    (4th Cir. 1991).
    We consider here whether the language of the Agreement is
    sufficient to trigger coverage for Standard Pacific under the
    additional insured endorsement contained in the Amerisure policy
    issued    to     Matthews.       Amerisure        contends     that    the    coverage
    afforded   Standard         Pacific   by    the    endorsement        is   limited   to
    Matthews’s      ongoing     operations      because    the    Agreement      does    not
    clearly require “your work” coverage.                 Standard Pacific responds
    that the endorsement does not require the use of the term “your
    2
    The district court also held that the Agreement does not
    violate   South   Carolina  Code   § 32-2-10,   which  declares
    construction contracts that indemnify the promisee against
    liability resulting from their own negligence void as against
    public policy. That ruling has not been appealed.
    6
    work” to provide the relevant coverage, but rather allows for
    coverage       if   the    Agreement          includes       “wording       to    that     same
    effect.”       According to Standard Pacific, such wording is found
    in several places in the Agreement.                          We agree with Standard
    Pacific.
    Under    South     Carolina       law,       “clauses    of   exclusion”          in    an
    insurance       policy      are    to     be       “narrowly     interpreted,”            while
    “clauses of inclusion” are “to be broadly construed.”                              McPherson
    v.    Mich.    Mut.   Ins.       Co.,    
    426 S.E.2d 770
    ,    771    (S.C.    1993). 3
    Relatedly, where the words of an insurance policy are capable of
    two    reasonable         interpretations,           the     court     will       adopt       the
    construction most favorable to the insured.                          Forner v. Butler,
    
    460 S.E.2d 425
    , 427 (S.C. 1995).                     In this case, the endorsement
    issued to Matthews by Amerisure requires that a contract with an
    additional insured include the phrase “your work” or “wording to
    that   same     effect”     in    order       to    invoke    coverage      for    completed
    operations.         Thus, Standard Pacific is entitled to coverage if
    the Agreement satisfies either one of these conditions.
    Although it is certainly true, as the district court found,
    that   the     Agreement     does       not    explicitly      refer       to    “your    work”
    3
    The parties do not dispute that this diversity action is
    governed by the law of South Carolina. Nor do they assert that
    the appeal presents anything other than a question of law
    regarding the scope of coverage under the policy.
    7
    coverage, we conclude that it does include “wording to that same
    effect”    sufficient       to    trigger        coverage.          To   begin    with,     the
    “Liability       Insurance”       section        of     the     Agreement        requires     a
    minimum     amount     of    “Products/Completed                Operations”        coverage,
    which South Carolina law recognizes as encompassing coverage for
    “bodily     injury    and        property        damages       arising     out    of     ‘your
    product’ or ‘your work.’”             Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., v.
    Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Ill., 
    524 S.E.2d 847
    , 851 (S.C. 1999).
    Moreover,    the     “Indemnity”         section       of     the   Agreement      obligates
    Matthews to indemnify and hold harmless Standard Pacific “from
    and against any and all claims, loss, damage or expense . . .
    arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Work
    or any portion thereof.”              J.A. 185 (emphasis added).                    Although
    “arising     out     of”    and     “performance”             are    undefined      in      the
    Agreement, the meaning of those terms given by other sources
    supports    the     conclusion       that    the       parties       contemplated        “your
    work” coverage.
    In that regard, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has
    interpreted “arising out of” to mean “caused by” in the context
    of   an    exclusionary          clause     in     a    general      liability         policy.
    McPherson, 426 S.E.2d at 771.                     Additionally, “performance” is
    commonly understood to mean “[t]he successful completion of a
    contractual        duty”    and     is     also        “termed      full    performance.”
    Black’s    Law     Dictionary       1252     (9th       ed.    2009).       And     although
    8
    “performance” usually “result[s] in the performer’s release from
    any     past     or     future       liability,”       id.,     the    parties          here
    specifically      contracted         for    prospective       indemnity      for   claims
    arising out of the performance of Matthews’s work.
    In sum, Matthews committed in the Agreement to extend “your
    work” coverage to Standard Pacific, if not expressly then by
    using    “wording      to     that   same    effect”    as     contemplated        by    the
    policy endorsement.            We think this conclusion is both free from
    doubt and consistent with a view of the policy most favorable to
    the insured.          McPherson, 426 S.E.2d at 771.              The district court
    therefore erred in granting summary judgment to Amerisure.
    III.
    For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the
    district       court    and    remand      with    instructions       that    it    enter
    summary judgment for Standard Pacific.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED
    9
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1444

Citation Numbers: 500 F. App'x 237

Judges: Cogburn, Diaz, Max, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/19/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024