As part of our ongoing series on obscure provisions of the commercial
general liability (CGL) policy, this article examines clause 1.g in the
"Supplementary Payments" provisions, which focuses on the right of
the insured to recover post-judgment interest on the amount of any judgment.
The clause exists to protect the insured from liability for additional interest
and/or costs incurred because of the insurer’s actions.
This series deals with provisions of the CGL policy that are not well known
by practitioners and that are all too frequently overlooked. The first
article dealt with the declaration warranty provisions contained in
Condition 6. The last
article addressed the "Supplementary Payments" provision that
applies to Coverage A and Coverage B and that allows insureds to be compensated
for assisting in the investigation and defense of the claim or case.
Supplementary Payments Clause 1.g.
Clause 1.g. in the "Supplementary Payments" provision of the
current Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO), form sets forth the
following.
- We will pay, with respect to any claim we investigate or settle, or any
"suit" against an insured we defend:
g. All interest on the full amount of any
judgment that accrues after entry of the judgment and before we have paid,
offered to pay, or deposited in court the part of the judgment that is within
the applicable limit of insurance.
These payments will not reduce the limits of
insurance.
This is a very important provision to insureds for several reasons. The
insurer under this provision owes post-judgment interest on the entire judgment
until it is paid, offered to pay, or deposited in court the amount covered by
the policy. This means that if the judgment were $10 million and the policy
limits were only $1 million, the insurer would owe all of the post-judgment
interest on the entire $10 million until it has paid, offered to pay, or
deposited in court the covered portion of the judgment. The second important
feature is that the interest is included in the supplementary payments and
would be in addition to the limits of liability of the policy. In some cases,
the post-judgment interest under the policy could exceed the $1 million limit
of liability. This is a very important feature.
Avoiding Paying Post-Judgment Interest
How does the CGL insurer stop the obligation for post-judgment interest?
There are three ways. The first is to actually pay the covered damages. This
would generally have to be in the form of a settlement. This could be
problematic if the judgment far exceeds the policy limits. In those cases, the
insured will not want the policy limits to be paid to the plaintiff without
receiving a full release. Otherwise, the insurer would be funding the
continuation of the case against its insured.
A second way to stop the running of the post-judgment interest is to offer
to pay the portion of the judgment covered by the policy. There is very little
case law on this point. Generally, it would involve the insurer providing
written notice to the insured of its willingness to pay that part of the
judgment covered by the policy plus any applicable post-judgment interest.
A third alternative to stop the accrual of post-judgment interest is to
deposit the amount in the court. This would be in the nature of an
interpleader. The insurer in that case would not be paying the money to the
plaintiff so the concern about funding the plaintiff's case would not be
there. The insurer would interplead the applicable amount into the registry of
the court. Again, the amount would have to include not only the covered damages
but also any accrued post-judgment interest.
Any of these three actions would stop the accrual of post-judgment interest
under the supplementary payments section of the policy.
Case Law on the Post-Judgment Interest Provision
We will consider some of the very few cases focusing on this provision.
Norby Constr., Inc. v. American Safety Indem., Co.
A California district court held that liability under the supplementary
payment provision 1.g. arises only when the insurer owes a duty to defend in
the first place. Nordby Constr., Inc. v. American Safety Indem. Co.,
No. 14-CV-04074-LHK, 2015 WL 1737654 at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2015). In
Nordby, the general contractor sought indemnity against its
subcontractor's insurer based on the fact that the subcontractor named it
as an additional insured under the policy. Specifically, the general contractor
argued that the supplemental payments coverage of the policy included coverage
for fees, costs, and interest and triggered a duty to defend the general
contractor as a contractual indemnitee. The insurer countered that the general
contractor's claims under the supplemental payments coverage provision fail
as a matter of law because the insurer, among other things, did not defend its
insured, the subcontractor, in the underlying litigation for a construction
defect and that the general contractor could not satisfy the conditions for
coverage as a contractual indemnitee.
The Nordby court noted that the actual provision of defense is of
no concern for purposes of determining the insurer's post-judgment interest
obligation. Rather, what gives rise to the insurer's post-judgment interest
obligation is the insurer's duty to defend the insured. Ultimately,
however, the court held that the insurer owed no duty to defend to its insured
and to the general contractor. Consequently, the insurer owed no
post-judgment interest.
World Harvest Church v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co.
In a similar vein, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the insurer owed no
post-judgment interest to its insured based on the CGL policy exclusion that
precluded coverage for physical and sexual abuse "by anyone of any person
while in the care, custody, or control of the insured" in World
Harvest Church v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 148 Ohio St. 3d 11, 68 N.E.3d 738
(2016). Under the facts of Harvest Church, the insured daycare center
attempted to argue that the exclusion was inapplicable given that the
allegations in the underlying suit raised the insured's vicarious and not
its direct liability for the abuse of a toddler committed by one of the
insured's employees. The Harvest Church court rejected the
insured's argument, stating that the exclusion's language did not limit
its scope to bodily injury claims arising from direct liability.
To successfully argue that the exclusion failed to apply, the court
observed, the insured should have shown that its employee did not act within
the scope of his employment when he abused the toddler while the toddler was in
the insured's care, custody, and control. Falling short of that argument,
the insured failed to show that coverage existed and thus was not entitled to
post-judgment interest under clause 1.d. of the supplementary payment
provisions.
More Complex Case Law on the Post-Judgment Interest Provision
While the above cases illustrate the run-of-the-mill legal issues that arise
in connection with clause 1.g., the following cases add some complexity to the
topic.
Deciding whether the primary or the excess insurer was liable for
post-judgment interest, a Missouri district court held that post-judgment
interest that accrued after the primary insurer paid post-judgment interest was
to be assessed against the excess insurer. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v.
Illinois Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 3:12-CV-657-CWR-FKB, 2015 WL 1198079, at
*5 (S.D. Miss. 2015). The Fireman's Fund court explained that the
plain reading of both policies compelled a conclusion that the excess
insurer's liability for post-judgment interest arose once the primary
insurer "offered to pay" such interest. In other words, the tender of
the primary insurer's policy limits constituted an "offer to pay"
under the terms of its policy, with the effect of relieving the primary insurer
of an obligation to pay post-judgment interest.
Another interesting case interpreting clause 1.d. came out of Illinois and
focused on determining whether the insurer had a duty to indemnify the insured
and its assignee in a class action lawsuit based on the violation of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227
et seq. In First Mercury Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Sec. Servs.,
Inc., 54 N.E.3d 323 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2016), the insured, a private
detective agency, faxed to some 3,671 individuals with whom it had no
preexisting business relationship an unsolicited advertisement in violation of
the TCPA, an action that was determined to constitute "property
damage" and an invasion of privacy under the implicated insurance
policies. The First Mercury court of appeals held that the
policies' exclusion prohibiting penalties and damages that are multiple of
compensatory damages barred coverage for any doubling of the $500 statutory
award. As such, the insurer could owe no post-judgment interest obligation. The
court additionally observed that the insurer could not be liable for such an
interest based on the fact that, under the TCPA, no insurer can be liable for
post-judgment interest related to a class action settlement.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank and acknowledge
the contributions to this Commentary by Ekaterina Long.