Two Zurich group insurers want out of a construction injury claim, arguing the job site was never listed on the policy.
Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action on March 27, 2026, in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The insurers are asking a federal court to rule that they have no obligation to defend or indemnify Harrod Management, LLC, a Florida-based construction manager, in a personal injury lawsuit tied to a warehouse project in Augusta, Georgia.
The dispute traces back to February 2023. According to court filings, Harrod Management had been retained to coordinate, supervise, and manage the construction of a large warehouse facility at 1624 Hartrich Road in Augusta. A worker named Shawn Heckman was allegedly struck by an excavator on the site, operated by an employee of Florida Concrete Services, LLC. Heckman later sued Harrod and several other parties in Gwinnett County, Georgia, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.
When Harrod turned to its insurers for a defense, the response was not what it likely expected.
Zurich American had issued a commercial insurance policy to Harrod that included general liability coverage, while American Guarantee had issued a commercial umbrella liability policy. Both policies were effective from April 2022 to April 2023 and both contained endorsements tying coverage to a schedule of 61 designated premises. The Augusta warehouse site, according to the court filing, was not among them.
The Zurich American policy included a "Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises, Project or Operations" endorsement, which restricts coverage to bodily injury that occurs at a scheduled location or arises out of a scheduled project. Separately, a "Construction Operations Exclusion" endorsement bars coverage for injuries arising out of construction work, defined in the policy to include "the construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, excavation, roofing, structural façade work or remediation of any building, property or structure."
The umbrella policy mirrors those restrictions. It contains a "Designated Premises Limitation" endorsement and a "Designated Work or Operation(s) Exclusion" that removes coverage for "any and all construction operations." Because the umbrella is structured as an excess follow-form policy, it does not respond if the underlying general liability policy does not apply for reasons other than exhaustion of limits.
Both insurers also contend that Florida public policy bars coverage for any punitive damages that may be awarded in the underlying lawsuit.
No final determination has been made in the case. The filing, however, underscores a reality that brokers and risk managers in the construction space know well but sometimes overlook: if a job site does not appear on the policy schedule, the coverage may simply not be there, no matter how many layers of insurance sit above it.
