The Stratton Corporation and Intrawest Stratton Development Corporation
Engelberth Construction, Inc.
Evergreen Roofing, LLC
On Appeal from Superior Court, Windham Unit, Civil Division. Karen R. Carroll, J.
Shapleigh Smith, Jr., William Andrew MacIlwaine and Sophie E. Zdatny of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard W. Affolter, Michael J. Gannon and Sara Moran of Affolter Gannon & Rose, Ltd., Essex Junction, for Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Present: Reiber, C.J., Dooley and Skoglund, JJ., and Maley and Griffin, Supr. JJ., Specially Assigned
[¶1] This case stems from a condominium construction project in Stratton, Vermont. Owner and developer, Stratton Corporation and Intrawest Stratton Development Corporation (collectively " developer" ), sued the project's general contractor Engelberth Construction, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party claim against subcontractor Evergreen Roofing Company. A jury found that Engelberth Construction breached its contract with developer and breached an express warranty, which proximately caused developer to sustain damages related to roof repairs. The jury also found that Evergreen Roofing breached its subcontract with Engelberth Construction, and that Evergreen Roofing was obligated to indemnify Engelberth Construction. Evergreen Roofing appeals. It argues that the court erred in denying a pretrial motion for summary judgment filed by Engelberth Construction on various issues, including the scope of the contract between developer and Engelberth Construction and whether proof of noninsurance or lack of availability of insurance coverage was a prerequisite to developer's recovery against Engelberth. We conclude that Evergreen Roofing failed to preserve its argument, and we therefore affirm.
[¶2] The record indicates the following. In April 2000, developer and Engelberth Construction entered into a standard agreement outlining the scope and terms of a condominium construction project. The agreement gave developer the option of implementing a Consolidated Insurance Program (CIP), which developer did. Article 11A of the agreement, entitled " Insurance, Bonds and Indemnification," outlined developer's responsibilities, as well as those of Engelberth Construction and any subcontractors, given the implementation of the CIP. Article 11A contained the following provisions related to the CIP; the term " owner" refers to developer:
11.1.2 CIP Coverage -- Owner may implement a CIP to furnish certain insurance coverages as respects on-site activities. The CIP will be for the benefit of the owner, Contractor and Subcontractors of any tier (unless specifically excluded) who have on-site employees. Such coverage applies only to work performed under the Contract Documents at the Project site and the Contractor and all Subcontractors of any tier must provide their own insurance for off-site activities. Contractor and all Subcontractors of any tier will also be responsible for providing the coverages specified in Subparagraph 11.1.8. The CIP is not intended to cover consultants, suppliers, vendors, or materials dealers or others whose function is solely to supply and/or deliver materials, parts, or equipment to and from the site. The CIP is intended to cover these individuals if they remain on site (after delivery) in an advisory
capacity regarding installation or use of the materials, parts or equipment delivered.
In the event it implements CIP, Owner may procure and maintain [other] types of insurance in force as part of the CIP for the Contractor and Subcontractors of any tier (unless specifically excluded).
The agreement then listed several other types of insurance, including workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance, commercial general liability insurance, and excess liability insurance, that ...