Pulte Homes is taking three insurers to federal court over what it says are wrongful refusals to defend a New Jersey condo defect suit.
Filed on December 2, 2025, in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, the case was brought by Pulte Homes of NJ, Limited Partnership against Erie Insurance Exchange, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, and Evanston Insurance Company. Pulte alleges the carriers failed to defend it as an additional insured in ongoing construction defect litigation involving a Bergen County residential community known as Signature Place at Garfield. The filing sets out Pulte’s allegations and does not reflect any judicial ruling on them.
According to the suit, Pulte was the developer of Signature Place at Garfield, a project of townhome-style condominiums and common improvements, including a clubhouse and recreational amenities, located in Bergen County, New Jersey. Pulte entered into Master Trade Contractor Agreements with Construction Applicators Philadelphia, LLC (CAP) in 2009 and 2011 and with Michael J. Wright Construction Co., Inc. (MJW) in 2009, 2011, and 2014. Beginning in 2010, Pulte and its contractors executed multiple Schedule A’s further detailing CAP’s and MJW’s work, which were incorporated into the contracts.
The agreements with CAP and MJW, Pulte says, required that Pulte be added as an additional insured on the contractors’ liability policies through endorsements at least as broad as ISO Form CG 2010 11/85 Additional Insured – Owners, Lessees or Contractors – Form B. Under those contracts, Pulte’s additional insured status could not be limited by amendatory language, and the policies were to provide primary coverage to Pulte.
The underlying state court case, Signature Place at Garfield Condominium Association, Inc. v. Pulte Homes of NJ, Limited Partnership, et al., Docket No. BER-L-7442-20, was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, Law Division. The association’s complaint and five amended complaints name Pulte, CAP, and MJW, among others. They allege that defective work, including work performed by CAP and MJW, resulted in property damage to the project for which Pulte is liable.
The association’s pleadings assert that Pulte’s subcontractors had a duty to construct the project free of defects and that they negligently and carelessly failed to do so, causing damage to buildings, site improvements, and common elements. Alleged defects in the roof structure and framing include failures to properly fasten the ceiling to the roof structure, said to cause separation and cracking at the joints between walls and ceilings on the third floor of all fourteen townhouse buildings due to what is described as “truss lift.” The pleadings also allege defects in the clubhouse, including ceiling and gypsum board delamination and cracking, resulting in damage to other non-defective work, including paint. The association claims these issues have caused, and will in the future cause, it to expend substantial sums of money.
In the federal case, Pulte describes commercial general liability policies issued by Erie to CAP, and by Penn National and Evanston to MJW. For each, the suit recites core insuring language: the insurer will pay those sums the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage,” and will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. “Property damage” is described as including physical injury to tangible property and loss of use of tangible property, while “occurrence” is defined as an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.
The filing also focuses on additional insured provisions. For Erie, Pulte points to an endorsement that, as described in the suit, extends insured status to any person or organization for whom the named insured is performing operations and has agreed in writing to add as an additional insured, with respect to liability for “bodily injury” and “property damage” caused, in whole or in part, by the named insured’s work and included in the products-completed operations hazard. According to the complaint, Penn National’s and Evanston’s endorsements similarly provide additional insured status to parties the named insured is required by written contract to name as additional insureds, with coverage tied to “your work” at the designated location and included in the products-completed operations hazard.
On timing, Pulte says it tendered the condominium association lawsuit to Penn National on November 30, 2020, to Erie on December 4, 2020, and to Evanston on April 25, 2021. Erie, according to the suit, denied a defense on May 20, 2021, on the basis that the underlying complaints did not allege “property damage” due to an “occurrence” within the meaning of its policy, and later maintained that position in additional letters. Penn National allegedly denied coverage on May 21, 2021, asserting that the requirements of its additional insured endorsement were not satisfied, and reaffirmed its denial in subsequent correspondence, even as it agreed to provide a defense to MJW in the same underlying case. As for Evanston, Pulte alleges that in the four and a half years since its tender, the insurer has not issued a coverage determination despite repeated follow-ups.
Pulte brings separate counts for declaratory judgment and breach of the duty to defend against each insurer. It asks the court to declare that Erie, Penn National, and Evanston had, and continue to have, a duty to defend Pulte in the state court action, to require them to provide a defense going forward, and to order reimbursement of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and other litigation costs from no later than the earliest notice date to each insurer. Pulte also seeks prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees under New Jersey Rule 4:42-9(a)(6), costs, incidental and consequential damages, and a jury trial.
At this stage, these are allegations in a newly filed federal case, and no court has yet decided whether any of the three insurers must defend Pulte in the underlying New Jersey litigation.
