A worker fell 30 feet through a skylight and died. Four years later, the insurer wants out.
Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company has gone to federal court to argue it has no obligation to cover a Connecticut masonry contractor over a wrongful-death claim tied to a fatal construction-site fall at Fairfield University.
The complaint, filed September 16 in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut, turns on a single question: what was the dead worker's relationship to the contractor? Depending on the answer, one of three policy exclusions could knock out coverage altogether.
According to the filing, the worker fell approximately 30 feet through a skylight on the roof of the Central Utility Facility building at Fairfield University's campus in Fairfield, Connecticut, on or about May 31, 2022. He died from his injuries.
The worker's estate later sued Fairfield University and several other companies in Connecticut state court, alleging those defendants owned, controlled, or managed the roof and skylight, or were hired to perform work and safety measures at the site. The contractor and his business were not named in that original lawsuit.
Fairfield University responded by filing an apportionment complaint in October 2024 - a procedural move under Connecticut law that lets a defendant point to other parties it says share responsibility for the loss. That complaint named the contractor, a separate individual identified as Thomas Martin, the contractor's trade-name business Martin Construction, and two related entities, AJP Restoration and AJP Restoration, LLC, alleging each was on the worksite with, or had responsibility for, the worker and may be liable for some or all of the damages.
BHDIC - the Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary that issued the contractor's businessowners' policy - agreed to defend him, but with strings attached. In a May 2025 letter, it told the contractor it was reserving the right to argue later that the policy doesn't actually cover the claim. This federal lawsuit is the next step.
The policy (No. N9BP255592, covering August 4, 2021 to August 4, 2022) carried liability limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in aggregate. The business was described as "Masonry Contractor."
BHDIC is running three exclusions, each one triggered by a different classification of the worker:
If the worker was an employee or temporary worker of the contractor, an absolute employee-injury exclusion bars coverage for any bodily injury arising out of that employment.
If the worker was a contractor, subcontractor, or an employee of either, a construction-worker exclusion bars coverage for injuries arising out of construction work performed for the insured - unless the subcontractor had signed a written indemnity agreement and carried their own general liability insurance for the insured's benefit.
If the worker was a volunteer, a volunteer-worker exclusion bars coverage for injuries to anyone donating work to, or performing duties for, the insured's business.
The complaint alleges the worker "was, at the time of his fall, performing roofing or construction-related work at the direction of, on behalf of, in the employ of, or as a subcontractor or volunteer for" the contractor and/or Martin Construction. BHDIC's position is that no matter which category the worker falls into, an exclusion applies.
BHDIC also raises a fourth ground: late notice. The policy required the contractor to report any incident or claim "as soon as practicable" and to immediately forward any legal papers. According to the complaint, the contractor never contacted BHDIC about the fall, the wrongful-death lawsuit, or the apportionment complaint. The insurer says it only learned of the matter on or about October 25, 2024 - more than two years after the fall - when it was contacted by the worker's estate counsel.
BHDIC argues that if that delay prejudiced its ability to investigate or respond to the claims, coverage should be barred or limited.
The insurer is asking the court for a declaration that it owes no duty to defend the contractor, no duty to pay any judgment or settlement, and that the policy provides no coverage for the apportionment claims - on the basis of one or more of the three exclusions or the late-notice breach.
For coverage professionals and claims teams, the case is a clean illustration of how a single workplace fatality can produce a coverage fight that hinges entirely on how a worker is classified - and how a long gap between the loss and the first notification can hand the carrier an additional way out.
The allegations in the complaint have not been proven, and no court has made any determination on the merits of BHDIC's claims.
