From FC&S Legal: Emergency Mitigation Measures and Repairs, Allegedly Faulty, Doom Coverage. A federal district court has ruled that an insurer was not obligated to cover claims stemming from allegedly faulty emergency mitigation measures and repairs made to a roof damaged by Hurricane Isaac. The Case Cedar Ridge, LLC, alleged that its Riverlands Shopping Center was damaged by Hurricane Isaac and that it contracted with Roof Technologies, Inc., to perform “emergency mitigation work,” which generally consisted of fastening tarps to Riverlands’ roof. Cedar Ridge then filed a claim with Landmark American Insurance Company and RSUI Indemnity Company (together, “Landmark”), which was denied on the ground that the emergency mitigation work had caused additional damage to Riverlands. Cedar Ridge sued Landmark, which filed a complaint against Roof Tech, asserting that, “in the event [Landmark was] held liable to plaintiff for any of the claims asserted, third party defendant, Roof Technologies, Inc. [was] liable to [Landmark] for the damage it caused to the property at issue as a result of its defective workmanship and by the improper installation of tarps on the roof following Hurricane Isaac.” Roof Tech moved for summary judgment.

1. The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center
The following article is from National Underwriter’s latest online resource,
FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center.
EMERGENCY MITIGATION MEASURES AND REPAIRS, ALLEGEDLY
FAULTY, DOOM COVERAGE
February 5, 2014 Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., Director, FC&S Legal
A federal district court has ruled that an insurer was not obligated to cover claims stemming from allegedly faulty
emergency mitigation measures and repairs made to a roof damaged by Hurricane Isaac.
The Case
Cedar Ridge, LLC, alleged that its Riverlands Shopping Center was damaged by Hurricane Isaac and that it contracted
with Roof Technologies, Inc., to perform “emergency mitigation work,” which generally consisted of fastening tarps to
Riverlands’ roof. Cedar Ridge then filed a claim with Landmark American Insurance Company and RSUI Indemnity
Company (together, “Landmark”), which was denied on the ground that the emergency mitigation work had caused
additional damage to Riverlands.
Cedar Ridge sued Landmark, which filed a complaint against Roof Tech, asserting that, “in the event [Landmark was] held
liable to plaintiff for any of the claims asserted, third party defendant, Roof Technologies, Inc. [was] liable to [Landmark] for
the damage it caused to the property at issue as a result of its defective workmanship and by the improper installation of
tarps on the roof following Hurricane Isaac.”
Roof Tech moved for summary judgment.
The Policy
The policy provided:
3. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following, 3.a. through 3.c. But if an excluded
cause of loss that is listed in 3.a. through 3.c. results in a Covered Cause of Loss, we will pay for the loss or damage
caused by that Covered Cause of Loss.
c. Faulty, inadequate or defective:
(2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;
(3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling;
or
(4) Maintenance;
of part or all of any property on or off the described premises.
The Court’s Decision
The court granted the insurer’s motion.
In its decision, the court reasoned that if the policy did not apply to any damages caused by Roof Tech’s allegedly
faulty work, then Roof Tech was entitled to summary judgment on Landmark’s claim. The court noted that the policy
excluded damage resulting from faulty workmanship, repair, or construction, and it pointed out that Landmark’s third
party complaint was premised on “defective workmanship” and the “improper installation” of tarps. As the court
explained, “faulty repairs, including faulty short-term mitigation repairs,” were subject to a policy exclusion, and
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com

2. Landmark, the only party that opposed Roof Tech’s motion, had “not come forward with any admissible evidence to
the contrary.” The court therefore concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the policy
exclusion applied to Roof Tech’s allegedly faulty repairs.
The case is Cedar Ridge, LLC v. Landmark American Ins. Co., No. 13–672 (E.D. La. Jan. 27, 2014). Attorneys involved
include: Joseph M. Bruno, Daniel A. Meyer, Bruno Bruno, New Orleans, LA, for Cedar Ridge, LLC; Stephen R. Barry,
Kathleen Crowe Marksbury, Barry Piccione, New Orleans, LA, for Landmark American Insurance Company et al.
Call 1-800-543-0874 | Email customerservice@SummitProNets.com | www.fcandslegal.com
Copyright © 2014 The National Underwriter Company. All Rights Reserved.
NOTE: The content posted to this account from FCS Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center is current to the date of its initial
publication. There may have been further developments of the issues discussed since the original publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding
that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice is required, the services of a competent
professional person should be sought.
For more information, or to begin your free trial:
• Call: 1-800-543-0874
• Email: customerservice@SummitProNets.com
• Online: www.fcandslegal.com
FCS Legal guarantees you instant access to the most authoritative and comprehensive
insurance coverage law information available today.
This powerful, up-to-the-minute online resource enables you to stay apprised
of the latest developments through your desktop, laptop, tablet, or smart phone
—whenever and wherever you need it.