Chinese Drywall Presentation at 2009 FETTI Conference

Matt Barrett and Jeff Kershaw discussed the insurance coverage implications of Chinese Drywall on Friday, October 2, 2009 at the 2009 FETTI Conference in Chicago. The National Forum for Environmental & Toxic Tort Issues (FETTI) is an organization that was created by the environmental sector of the insurance industry. Members are typically individuals, companies and firms actively engaged in the adjustment, settlement and defense of casualty or property claims arising out of environmental damage or exposure to toxic substances.

From 2004 through 2006, drywall manufactured in China was imported for residential construction projects. This “Chinese drywall” was used across the country but mostly in Florida, where there was a housing boom, and in Louisiana, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Thereafter, homeowners began complaining of foul odors, corrosion, and respiratory and other health problems that they attributed to the drywall. Although hard science regarding the causes of these issues or the drywall’s purported effects remains scarce, claims have be been made and lawsuits filed since reports began surfacing in late 2008. Matt and Jeff's presentation focused on coverage defenses available with regard to drwyall-related damages under commercial general liability, first-party, and pollution liability insurance polices.

For more information including a copy our paper titled "Chinese Drywall: Coverage Implications," please contact Matt Barrett at mbarrett@fieldshowell.com or (404) 214-1733.

Fields Howell attorneys Mike Athans and Matt Barrett received a favorable decision

Fields Howell attorneys Mike Athans and Matt Barrett received a favorable decision from US District Court Judge Louis Sands on September 30, 2009, granting summary judgment to their clients, CNA insurance companies, in a construction defect insurance coverage Declaratory Judgment action in the Middle District, Georgia. Judge Sands ruled that alleged defective construction of apartment buildings in Columbus that resulted in settling, cracking and other alleged damage needing repair did not constitute an accident or occurrence under Georgia law. Therefore, the insurers did not have an obligation to defend or indemnify the insured general contractor that was sued by the property owner in the underlying lawsuit.