Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc.
618 F.3d 1153 | Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | 2010
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
An insurance company sued a roofing subcontractor over coverage for a luxury hotel project in Wyoming. The court ruled that the insurance company could sue the subcontractor in Wyoming because the subcontractor had worked on a three-year construction project there. The court also applied Wyoming law to decide whether the insurance company had to defend the subcontractor against claims. This matters because it shows that courts can hold subcontractors accountable in states where they do significant work, even if they're based elsewhere.
Key Takeaways
- •Working on a multi-year project in a state creates legal exposure there—courts can sue you in that state based on your construction work
- •Insurance disputes follow the law of the state where the work happened, not where your company is incorporated
- •Document all insurance requirements in your contracts and make sure your coverage matches the states where you work
Bartile purposefully availed itself of conducting business in Wyoming through a three-year construction project.
Frequently Asked Question
If I work on a big project in another state, can I be sued there even though my company is based elsewhere?
Yes. Courts can establish jurisdiction over you in any state where you conduct substantial business, including multi-year construction projects. This means you need insurance coverage that applies in every state where you work, and you should understand which state's laws will govern disputes about that coverage.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.