Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Faulty workmanship exclusion bars Marriott franchisee’s claim: Court

Reprints
Marriott

A federal district court judge reaffirmed her earlier ruling in favor of an Everest Re Group Ltd. unit, denying a Marriott International Inc. franchise owner’s claim for a windstorm-damaged roof.

After a September 2018 windstorm damaged its roof, Bethany Boardwalk Group LLC, which owns and operates a Marriott franchise in Bethany Beach, Delaware, known as the Bethany Beach Ocean Suites Residence Inn, submitted a claim under its policy with a unit of Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re, according to Wednesday’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in Baltimore in Bethany Boardwalk Group LLC v. Everest Security Insurance Co.

After Everest denied the claim citing the policy’s faulty workmanship exclusion, Bethany filed suit alleging breach of contract.

Judge Ellen L. Hollander ruled against the hotel on the roof damage in March, holding that Everest was not liable for the cost to repair or replace the hotel’s roof.

Bethany then filed a “motion for partial reconsideration,” which Judge Hollander denied.

The hotel roof consisted of three layers, according to the ruling: a concrete roof deck, insulation boards and a “thermoplastic polyolefin” membrane.

In seeking reconsideration, Bethany argued the policy “covers the repair of the TCP membrane because that layer of the roof was not defective; only the insulation boards were flawed.”

Bethany conceded that in its prior summary judgment motion it “did not distinguish between the two distinct components of the roof, one of which was effectively constructed and the other of which was not,” the ruling said.

“I decline plaintiff’s invitation to revisit my prior ruling based on the assertion of a contention that was not initially raised,” the judge ruled. Bethany “does not cite any cases that stand for the principal Bethany asks the Court to enunciate,” the ruling said.

The franchise owner has not identified new evidence, “Nor has Bethany demonstrated that reconsideration is warranted based on newly submitted evidence regarding the distinct costs for replacement to the TCP membrane and the insulation boards.”

Bethany’s attorney said he plans to appeal the decision, while Everest’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.