Scottsdale Insurance sues three insurers over $7.1 million home defense costs

A Los Angeles construction defect case sparked the coverage dispute

Scottsdale Insurance sues three insurers over $7.1 million home defense costs

Risk, Compliance & Legal

By Tez Romero

A $7.1 million Los Angeles home is at the center of an insurer-versus-insurer showdown over who should pay to defend a general contractor.

Scottsdale Insurance Company has taken three fellow insurers to federal court, arguing they have failed to share defense costs in a construction defect case. The lawsuit, filed on January 22, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, names Associated Industries Insurance Company, Underwriters at Lloyd's London, and United Specialty Insurance Company as defendants.

At the heart of the dispute is SDS Empire Construction, Inc., a general contractor facing allegations over defects at a single-family residence on Westridge Road in Los Angeles. The property, purchased by Patrick Tierney for $7,100,000.00 on July 19, 2020, is allegedly plagued by problems including defective waterproofing, water intrusion and leakage in the decks and portions of the roof, defective stucco, and faulty exterior surfaces in the master suite bathroom.

The underlying construction defect lawsuit was filed on December 15, 2023. SDS served as the general contractor under a prime contract dated February 14, 2018 and brought in multiple subcontractors to handle specialized work. Those subcontract agreements, according to court filings, required each subcontractor to add SDS as an additional insured under their own liability policies.

Scottsdale, which insures SDS directly, has been footing the defense bill and alleges it has or will be forced to incur amounts in excess of $75,000. The insurer argues that the three defendant insurers issued policies to the subcontractors that should also cover SDS, but none have stepped up.

The subcontractors whose policies are now under scrutiny include ATH Plumbing & Remodeling, Inc., G&M Plastering, Inc., H&R Construction and Resurfacing, Inc., International Glass Company Inc. doing business as Versa Glass, and Ultimate Installz, Inc.

According to the court filings, Associated Industries Insurance Company denied coverage for SDS under the G&M Plastering policies in May 2024 and again in November 2024. The insurer also denied coverage under the Ultimate Installz policy in December 2025, and allegedly never responded to the Versa Glass tender. Lloyd's and United Specialty Insurance Company, meanwhile, are accused of failing to respond to tender requests at all.

Scottsdale is now asking the court to declare that the defendants owe a duty to defend and indemnify SDS and to order them to reimburse their share of defense costs and any eventual settlement.

The case remains in its early stages, and no determination has been made on the merits.

Related Stories

Keep up with the latest news and events

Join our mailing list, it’s free!