The court rejected the insurer's contention that the waiver of subrogation contained in the construction contract between its insureds and a general contractor did not apply as one of the two insured homeowners had not actually executed the operative contract because the contract did not require that the signatures be notarized and further the parties, including the insured who had not signed the contract, had performed under the contract manifesting an assent to its terms.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login