Contribution Act
Under a subcontract between United Construction and Builder’s Bloc, Builder’s Bloc was to provide labor and equipment to construct a staircase at a job site. United Construction furnished the design documents. Builder’s Bloc obtained commercial general liability (CGL) insurance from defendant, ACIG, and named United as an insured. After construction was completed, the staircase collapsed and injured David Lavely and others. Lavely sued Builder’s Bloc for negligence. Builder’s Bloc settled along with ACIG for half of a million dollars, of which Builder’s Bloc paid half.
Builder’s Bloc then sued United Construction, seeking contribution in an amount corresponding to their share of liability for the collapse. They alleged inadequate and incomplete design of the staircase. ACIG asserted that it does not have a duty to defend United Construction in the litigation with Builder’s Bloc. At issue, is whether defendant has a duty to defend United Construction. Builder’s Bloc is entitled, under the Contribution Act, to seek contribution from United Construction for any portion of the common liability for which Builder’s Bloc is not responsible.
The Court held that ACIG does not have a duty to defend United Construction. To hold otherwise would allow United Construction to shift responsibility for its own independent acts of negligence under the terms of the subcontract, which is strictly prohibited under the Construction Contract Indemnification for Negligence Act.
United Construction Ent. Co. of St. Louis, Inc. v. American Contractors Insurance Group, Inc., 2011 WL 1258557 (S.D.Ill.)
