Appellate Court Affirms that Summary Judgment Was Properly Granted in Favor of Insurer Based on Professional Services/Architect Exclusion

April 1, 2002

Gianetti Felderman v. Estate of Habicht

Murchison & Cumming, through Jean M. Lawler and Nancy N. Potter, represented a deceased architect who was being defended by its general liability insurer pursuant to Probate Code Sections 550, et seq. (that section provides that an insurer may respond on behalf of a deceased insured and/or his estate) in a massive construction defect action pending in Santa Monica, California. This insurers policy was provided Commercial General Liability coverage with a specific exclusion for architect and engineer's professional services.  A summary judgment motion was filed on the theory that if the decedent had no insurance coverage, as a decedent he had no liability in the lawsuit; and that under the insurance policy in question; the architect was not covered for the claims for damage made against him in the litigation. Judge Lorna Parnell granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling:

"The policy contained unambiguous exclusions for professional architectural services, which services provide the basis for the alleged liability of [decedent.] Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no insurance liability or coverage under the [insurance] policy for the claims made against [decedent] or his Estate in this action."

Judge Parnell subsequently denied in a Motion to Vacate that judgment. Thereafter, another architect who claimed to be insured under the same CGL policy appealed from the judgment. On March 13, 2002, the Court of Appeal, in an unpublished decision, affirmed Judge Parnell's ruling, holding that coverage for architectural services was clearly excluded, so that there was no insurance coverage available for the decedent and no liability on the part of the decedent for the alleged construction defect damages, and summary judgment was properly granted.