In Brief
A contractor claimed under an insurance policy for bridge construction loss caused by an accident. The insurer repudiated the claim in toto, denying all liability based on findings of faulty design and defective workmanship. The contractor invoked the policy's arbitration clause. The Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause was conditional—operative only when the insurer admitted liability and the dispute concerned only quantum of loss. Since the insurer denied liability entirely, the dispute fell outside the arbitration clause and was non-arbitrable. The contractor's remedy was a civil suit, not arbitration. The Court distinguished the case from general post-amendment arbitration principles, holding that conditional insurance arbitration clauses must be strictly construed and require express admission of liability to function.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.