Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

August 20, 2018 — Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In June, the New York Court of Appeals examined the application of a New York Choice of Law provision in a contract – a determinative issue for the case. In Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp., the issue was whether the plaintiff’s claims were subject to Ontario, Canada’s 2-year statute of limitations or New York’s 6-year statute of limitations for breach of contract where the contract contained a broad New York Choice of Law provision. The court found that pursuant to New York’s borrowing statute, Ontario’s more restrictive statute of limitations applied. The action was dismissed as time-barred, serving as a harsh reminder of the potential effects of choice of law and limitations periods. The suit arose out of the following facts. In 2008, an Ontario renewable energy developer, SkyPower Corp. (“SkyPower”), entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the defendants which allowed the defendants to review SkyPower’s confidential and proprietary information. The review was conditioned on restricted disclosure and the requirement that the information would be destroyed after review. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com

Two Years, Too Late: Time-Barred Hurricane Loss is Timely Reminder to Insureds

November 01, 2021 — Michael S. Levine & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
It happens every year. A clearly covered loss occurs and for one reason or another, the policyholder delays in notifying its insurer of the loss. Usually, the cause for the delay is innocent. It may even appear to be justified, such as where the insured prioritizes steps to save its property, inventory or assist dependent customers. But no matter the reason, insurers can be hard-lined in their refusal to accept an untimely claim. This is especially true in states that presume prejudice to the insurer, or where the insurer need not show prejudice at all. In LMP Holdings, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., (Case No. 20-24099-CIV) (S.D. Fla.), a twenty‑seven month delay in notifying the insurer of damage from Hurricane Irma proved fatal to the claim. LMP owns a building in Miami, Florida insured under an all-risk commercial property policy issued by Scottsdale. On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck South Florida and caused extensive damage to LMP’s building, including punctures to the roof and water damage. LMP identified the damage shortly after the storm. Then, in 2018, LMP identified other storm-caused damage, including a water stain on the ceiling. It again identified additional storm damage in 2019. LMP submitted a claim to its insurer on December 10, 2019—about twenty-seven months after it first noticed the damage. Scottsdale agreed to inspect the property but reserved its rights to deny coverage based on late notice. On July 10, 2020, Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

June 12, 2023 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Houston, Texas (May 26, 2023) - Houston Partners Joelle Nelson and Matt Begley secured a defense verdict on behalf of a gasoline services company following a four-day trial in the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. In this case, Lewis Brisbois represented a client who hired a contractor to install a storm sewer line to mitigate flood risks to the client’s property. The contractor, however, deviated from the engineering plans and installed the storm sewer line on a neighboring property owned by the plaintiff. The storm sewer line then remained on the plaintiff’s property for five years while the parties attempted to negotiate potential solutions to the situation. The plaintiff refused multiple reasonable settlement attempts and ultimately sued the client and the contractor for continuous trespass and private nuisance. The contractor’s carrier denied coverage, making the client the target defendant. The matter proceeded to trial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Re-affirms American Girl To Find Coverage for Damage Caused by Subcontractors

September 20, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court's finding of no occurrence and no property damage due to faulty workmanship was reversed by the appellate court. No. 5 Walworth v. Engerman Contracting, Inc., 2021 Wis. App. LEXIS 401 (Wis. Ct. App, July 30, 2021). Engerman was the general contractor on a construction project at a residence. Engerman was hired to build a poll complex. Engerman subcontracted the project to Downes Swimming Pool Co., Inc. Downes purchased shotcrete (sprayed concrete) from Otto Jacobs Company LLC for the swimming poll walls and base. After completion, the pool immediately began leaking. An investigation determined that the shotcrete material was not installed correctly, contributing to cracking in the pool walls and the steel reinforcing bars were not sufficient to prevent cracks in the pool walls. The owner demolished the pool and constructed a new one. Thereafter, the owner sued Engerman, its insurers (General Casualty Company of Wisconsin and West Bend Mutual Insurance Company) and Downes and its insurer. Downes filed a third-party complaint against Jacobs and its insurer (Acuity Mutual Insurance Company) alleging Jacobs negligently provided inferior shotcrete to Downes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection

May 18, 2020 — Kyle Janecek & Jason Morris - Newmeyer Dillion
Most landlords and property managers are now familiar with steps they should be taking to reduce the spread of COVID-19. But what if a tenant or employee has tested positive with COVID-19? Unfortunately, many landlords and property managers are grappling with this very question. While there’s some clarity as it pertains to evictions in the landlord-tenant context, other considerations like disinfection, required notices, and maintenance, are evolving or unclear. Here are steps landlords and property managers can take in response to an employee or tenant testing positive with COVID-19. Measures Landlords Can Take for Employees For workplaces, there is a large variety of guidelines and procedures that are generally available to review. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has valuable guidance available online here and here. The Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) has valuable guidance available online here. In short, if there is an incident where one employee may have exposed others to COVID-19, here are five steps employers should take:

Send the affected employee home and instruct them not to return to work until the criteria to discontinue home isolation are met in consultation with healthcare providers, and state and local health departments. Make sure to maintain all information about employee illnesses as a confidential medical record.
Ask the affected employee whether they have had close contact with any other workers.

Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

May 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
On May 19, 2010, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined construction defect claims did not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy.Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) ("Group Builders I"). The appeal in Group Builders I, however, only addressed the duty to indemnify. The ICA has now issued a second decision (unpublished), holding that there is was duty to defend Group Builders on the construction defect claims under Hawaii law, based upon the policy language and the allegations in the underlying complaint. Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 Haw.App. LEXIS 207 (Haw. Ct. App. April 15, 2013). The underlying suit involved allegations by Hilton Hotels Corp. that Group Builders, a subcontractor working on an addition to the hotel, was responsible for mold found after completion of the project. Hilton alleged that the "design, construction, installation, and/or selection of the . . . building exterior wall finish . . . did not provide an adequate air and/or moisture barriers." The counts alleged against Group Builders included breach of contract and negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The South Carolina Supreme Court has left the legislature’s new, expanded definition of “occurrence” in place, declining to declare it unconstitutional. South Carolina included faulty workmanship as an occurrence in response to a Supreme Court decision, which the court later reversed. One of the parties in that earlier decision, Harleysville Insurance, challenged the new law, claiming that the legislature didn’t have the power to pass a law to overturn a court ruling. The court did not concur. However, the court did determine that the law was not retroactive and covered only claims filed after the law became effective in May 2011. The Chief Justice of South Carolina noted that “insurance coverage for construction liability lacks clarity, particularly with respect to whether construction defects constitute ‘occurrences’ under construction general insurance policies.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

October 19, 2020 — Kean Maynard - The Subrogation Strategist
Courts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided. In Cohen, Joshua Cohen (Cohen) rented a residential property to Lugretta Bryant (Bryant). Bryant’s property suffered damages as a result of a kitchen fire. Bryant’s insurer, proceeding as subrogee, hired a fire investigator to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Based on eyewitness testimony and examination of the burn patterns, the fire investigator concluded that the fire started at the General Electric (GE) microwave located in the kitchen. The investigator advised all parties to preserve the microwave so that a joint examination could take place with the property owner and GE present. In the following weeks, the tenant returned to the property to collect belongings and perform some cleaning in anticipation of repairs beginning. Importantly, the tenant claimed the microwave was preserved during these cleaning efforts and remained at the site as instructed. However, in the fall of 2017, one of Cohen’s workers discovered that the microwave was missing and its whereabouts remain unknown. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kean Maynard, White and Williams
Mr. Maynard may be contacted at maynardk@whiteandwilliams.com

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES