Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al. v. Selective Way Insurance Company, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, September Term, 2020 (April 1, 2021), Opinion by Getty, J.
In
2001, Questar Builders, Inc. (“Questar”) was hired as a general contractor for
a new apartment complex. Questar hired
numerous subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to obtain general
liability policies listing Questar as an additional insured prior to commencing
work on the project. Four of these subcontractors obtained insurance agreements
with Selective Way Insurance Company (“Selective Way”).
In
2006, the owner of the complex sued Questar and others alleging defective
construction with $4.5 million in property damage. Questar’s own liability
insurer, Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Nationwide”)
appointed and paid for defense counsel for Questar, who denied liability and
filed third-party complaints against each of their sub-contractors seeking
indemnity and contribution for the work they each performed on the project.
Questar also wrote to Selective Way to seek defense and indemnification
according to the four policies listing Questar as an additional insured. Despite this, Selective Way denied Questar’s
requests.
The primary suit against
Questar settled but the action regarding Selective Way’s duty to defend Questar
continued. After years of litigation, it was determined that Selective Way
breached its duty to defend Questar in the construction defect lawsuit and was
liable to Nationwide in the amount of $1,647,659.00, including over $400,000.00
dollars in prejudgment interest. Selective Way filed a timely appeal to the
Court of Special Appeals challenging the ruling that they had a duty to defend
the underlying construction lawsuit, the prejudgment interest on the damages
awarded by the jury, and the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Nationwide
in the declaratory judgment action. The Court
of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court’s judgment with respect to
prejudgment interest on defense costs and remanded the issue of attorneys’ fees
and expenses incurred in the construction defect suit. Nationwide filed a
timely petition to the Court of Appeals, which was granted solely on the issue
of prejudgment interest.
The
Court of Appeals started their analysis with the general rule that entitlement
to prejudgment interest is an issue for the finder of fact and should typically
be “left to the discretion of the jury.” I. W. Berman Props. v. Porter
Bros., Inc., 276 Md. 1, 18 (1975) (quoting Affiliated Distillers Brands
Corp. v. R.W.L. Wine & Liquor Co. Inc., 213 Md. 509, 516 (1957)). However, the court recognized that there is
an exception to this rule that allows for prejudgment interest as a matter of
right when “the obligation to pay and the amount due” is “certain, definite,
and liquidated by a specific date prior to judgment” such that “the effect of
the debtor’s withholding payment was to deprive the creditor of the use of a
fixed amount as of a known date.” Buxton v. Buxton, 363 Md. 634, 656
(2001) (quoting First Virginia Bank v. Settles, 322 Md. 555, 564 (1991)). The court also pointed to Maryland Rule
2-604(a) as the source of the procedural requirements for obtaining
pre-judgment interest in the State of Maryland, which states rewards of a
prejudgment interest must be “separately stated” in a verdict sheet. See
Fraidin v. Weitzman, 93 Md. App. 168, 219 (1992).
On
Appeal, Nationwide argued that this case was exceptional and met the
requirements for prejudgment interest as a matter of right because of Selective
Way’s duty to provide a defense to Questar. Although the Court of Appeals
agreed with this basic premise, they identified issues with the other elements
necessary to establish prejudgment interest as a matter of right. The court had previously determined that,
where a contract requires a “sum certain on a date certain[,]” the amount due
is fixed. United Cable Television of Balt. v. Burch, 354 Md. 658, 669
(1999) (quoting Crystal v. West & Callahan, Inc., 328 Md. 318, 343
(1992)). Nationwide contended that the
defense costs were definite and fixed at the time they were incurred and, but
for Selective Way’s breach of its duty to defend Questar, Selective Way would
have been aware of the exact costs as evidence by paid invoices and receipts.
To
the contrary, the Court of Appeals determined that the legal fees incurred by
Nationwide in its defense of Questar were not ascertainable at the time of the
breach and therefore were not liquidated on a date prior to trial. The Court of Appeals reasoned the attorney’s
fees incurred by Nationwide in its defense of Questar were billed at an hourly
rate as litigation work was completed and the full cost of the defense was not
ascertainable at the time of Selective Way’s breach because the full cost to
defend Questar had not yet been incurred by Nationwide.
The
Court of Appeals then turned to the procedural requirements of Md. Rule
2-604(a). In this case, the jury was not provided instructions on prejudgment
interest and included no mention of prejudgment interest in their verdict sheet.
The court held that Md. Rule 2-604(a) provides a uniform rule that all discretionary
awards of prejudgment interest by a fact finder must be separately stated in
the verdict or decision. Since this
requirement was not met, the Court of Appeals found no basis to uphold the
circuit court’s award of prejudgment interest in this case.
For
these reasons, the Court of Appeals found that Nationwide was not entitled to
prejudgment interest as a matter of right and the lack of a separately stated
award of prejudgment interest in the verdict sheet failed the requirements for
a discretionary award under Maryland Rule 2-604(a). This decision provides clarity on several
issues regarding how to preserve claims for prejudgment interest related to defense
costs and the procedures necessary to ensure that fact finders have the tools
and information necessary to articulate the type of interest owed by an
insurance provider when similar breaches occur.
- Horton McCormick, Associate
Attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment