BBL-McCarthy LLC v. Baldwin Paving Co.

The trial court erred in finding that the subcontractors' insurers had no duty to defend the general contractor and the owners of an office park under construction in the underlying actions arising from a deadly accident near the construction project.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this indemnity and insurance coverage action, BBL-McCarthy, LLC “BBL” and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company “St. Paul”1 appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their claims by grant of summary judgment to Baldwin Paving Company “Baldwin”, Transportation Insurance Company “TIC” Baldwin’s primary insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company “National Union” Baldwin’s excess insurer, Magnum Development, LLC “Magnum”, and Selective Insurance Company “Selective” Magnum’s primary and excess insurer. Specifically, BBL and St. Paul argue that the trial court erred in 1 finding that TIC, National Union, and Selective had no duty to defend BBL as an additional insured under their respective insurance policies, 2 finding that TIC, National Union, and Selective had no duty to indemnify BBL as an additional insured, 3 finding that Baldwin and Magnum had no contractual duty to indemnify BBL, and 4 finding that BBL and St. Paul had no right to common law indemnification or contribution against Baldwin and Magnum. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c; Britt v. Kelly & Picerne, Inc. 2 A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Phillips v. First Bank of Ga. 3

So construed, the record shows that the owners of property in north Fulton County sought to develop an office park construction project to be known as Parsons Meadow. Pursuant to a Design/Build Contract, the owners hired BBL as general contractor for the project. Under this contract, BBL was responsible for design and construction of the project and was required to obtain comprehensive general liability insurance coverage. To fulfill this obligation, BBL purchased an insurance policy from St. Paul.

BBL-McCarthy LLC v. Baldwin Paving Co.

The trial court erred in finding that the subcontractors' insurers had no duty to defend the general contractor and the owners of an office park under construction in the underlying actions arising from a deadly accident near the construction project.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report