As the developer of a project in New Jersey, you have secured insurance coverage for potential defect claims relating to your construction projects. You also require your contractors and design professionals to name you as an additional insured on their insurance policies. All of these insurance policies, however, are useless if you do not provide timely notice of claims to each of the policy insurers. In this post, we’ll explore why and ways that developers can minimize the risk associated with potential forfeiture of coverage arising from an insurer’s requirement for timely notification about design and construction defect claims.
Insurance Policies Require Timely Notification of Claims
Both “occurrence” and “claims made” policies are likely to contain notice or reporting obligations mandating that the insured notify the insurer of claims filed against the insured “as soon as practicable,” “within a reasonable time” or similar language. “Claims made” policies also require that notice be given by the insureds during the policy period or within a certain number of days after the policy expires.
The Legal Landscape: Timely Notification Tests
The New Jersey Supreme Court has established tests for each type of policy to determine whether an insured has forfeited coverage by failing to timely notify the insurer of a claim or incident. Under an “occurrence” policy, the insurer must prove both that the insured breached the policy’s notice provision and a likelihood of appreciable prejudice resulting from the untimely notice. That is, the insurer must also demonstrate that the delay impeded its ability to defend against the insured claim and that it would have had a meritorious defense to the claim had timely notice been provided. Under a “claims made” policy issued to a sophisticated insured, however, the insurer must prove only that the insured breached the policy’s notice provision. For example, where an insured notified its insurer six months after learning of claims against it, the Court found that the insured did not comply with the policy’s “as soon as practicable” notice requirement and held that the insurer could decline coverage even though the insured reported the claims within the “claims made” policy period.
Best Practices for Developers in New Jersey
No matter what type of policy is in effect to provide coverage for construction and design defect claims, developers should respect notice provisions to minimize the risk of arming their insurers with potential arguments that the notice provisions were breached and coverage was thereby forfeited. Even letting notice correspondence to slip through the cracks for a few months may be costly. Developers should also consider requiring their contractors and design professionals upon which they rely to agree to provide timely notification to their insurers of claims to ensure there will be funds to recover under claims of contribution and indemnification in the event that the developer is required to pay a homeowner or association for their contractors’ or design professionals’ negligence.
If you have questions about any aspect of construction defect law in New Jersey, contact Don Taylor at 732.855.6434 or Dan Kluska at 732.855.6033.
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the date of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.