All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage
January 06, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA portion of a dock on Lack Michigan operated by the Ports of Indiana suffered visible damage. See Ports of Indiana v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130979 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 14, 2011). Lexington Insurance Company insured the port. Lexington agreed that a portion of the dock was damaged and paid $1.2 million for repairs. A dispute arose, however, over whether additional sections of the dock were damaged and whether the damage was the result of more than one "occurrence."
An expert report opined that a significant drop creating record lows in the water level of Lake Michigan in 2007 caused damage to the dock. Lexington maintained that only 128 feet of the dock was damaged; other portions of the dock did not sustain "direct physical loss or damage."
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product
October 15, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found there was no coverage obligations for the insured's defective product. Titanium Indus., Inc. v. Federal. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4428324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 10, 2014).
The insured, Titanium Industries, supplied titanium bar materials to Biomet Manufacturing Corporation. Biomet manufactured orthopedic implants and devises. The titanium was used to manufacture screws to incorporate into Biomet's products.
Biomet notified the insured of a potential defect in some of the titanium material, described as "alloy segregation," i.e., the failure of alloys in a metal to completely melt, causing the alloy to separate and undermine the strength of the finished product. The insured and Biomet negotiated a settlement, which included lost profits and the cost of returning the titanium.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion
July 19, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Last Friday, at least three people died and twelve were injured during a fire at a Honolulu high-rise that did not have sprinklers, according to CBS News. The fire began on the 26th floor and spread to at least the 28th floor and several units, the Honolulu Fire Department spokesman, Captain David Jenkins, stated.
“Without a doubt if there were sprinklers in this apartment, the fire would be contained to the unit of origin,” Captain Jenkins concluded, as reported by CBS News.
The Marco Polo development “was built four years before Honolulu required fire sprinkler systems in new residential high-rises,” the LA Times reported. “In 2005, the Honolulu City Council created a task force to estimate the cost of retrofitting and installing fire sprinkler systems in about 300 residential condominium buildings. A report estimated that retrofitting the Marco Polo would cost $4,305.55 for each unit.” A separate report estimated the cost would be $4.5 million to retrofit the entire building.
According to Samuel Dannway, chief fire protection engineer for Coffman Engineers in Honoloulu, stated that the owners “lobbied strongly against any retrofitting” due to cost.
Retrofitting sprinklers is more challenging in residential high-rises than office buildings, Glenn Corbett, associate professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York told the LA Times. “Wall after wall, you have to penetrate with piping, and that means moving people around in apartments,” Corbett said. “They can’t live there while workers are drilling holes in their walls.”
Mayor Kirk Caldwell stated that Honolulu “needs to look at passing a new law requiring sprinklers in older high-rises.”
Read the full story, CBS News...
Read the full story, LA Times...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Inflation Begins to Rise
February 25, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Kathleen Madigan writing for The Wall Street Journal, “inflation remains muted at the start of 2014” except in one category: housing. Madigan stated that housing costs were “worth watching.”
The “owners’ equivalent rent index had been rising at a steady pace through most of 2012 and 2013, with 12-month percent changes hovering around 2%” however, “the pace picked up” at the end of last year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When Do You Call Your Lawyer?
October 08, 2014 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe National Association of Home Builders recently conducted a survey asking its members about the legal issues they faced in the last 12 months and whether they consulted their attorney to deal with the problem. Below are some highlights of the survey.
Legal Issue % of Homebuilders % Contacted Counsel
Warranty/call back claims 34% 51%
Contract disputes 22% 84%
Defective Install/Workmanship 20% 83%
OSHA Issues 13% 33%
CGL Coverage Questions 11% 73%
Construction Liens 10% 57%
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Sacramento Bee, the California Senate’s latest report said that “at least nine top experts for the new $6.5 billion San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge” were “’gagged and banished’” after complaining “about substandard work by the Shanghai, China, firm that built much of the span.”
According to the report, reported by the Sacramento Bee, Tony Anziano, Caltrans’ chief executive of the project, “removed or demoted quality-assurance and fabrication engineers who tried to force the contractor to fix cracked roadway welds.”
The report did not evaluate the bridge’s quality or safety, however, it “called for greater openness in large construction projects, a review of the weld problems by independent experts, and an investigation of allegations that engineering decisions were made by non-engineers.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.
February 14, 2023 —
David Humphreys - Carson Law Group, PLLCThis article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog
One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance.
A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage.
When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases.
Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense.
A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage.
Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed.
However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is
included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added).
It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
“Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS
F. Symbols
1. Plus Sign
A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that:
“Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion.
Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it
and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck.
This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . .
“Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.”
To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.”
David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.
*See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City
July 05, 2021 —
Caroline A. Harcourt, Natalie S. Starkman & Nika Bederman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a previous post, we described how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, 2019 (the CMA, or Local Laws 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 147 enacted in 2019) was passed with the goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050 (as against a 2005 baseline as provided for in item 3 of Local Law 97). It is the most ambitious building emissions law to be enacted by any city in the world. The CMA impacts “Covered Buildings” (described below) and, besides contemplating the retrofitting of Covered Buildings to achieve energy efficiency and establishing a monitoring program for Covered Buildings, the CMA contemplates compliance by means of the purchase of carbon offset credits or renewable energy. (Note the new NYC Accelerator program, launched in 2012 by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, provides guidance regarding energy-efficient upgrades to properties and emission reductions.)
Pursuant to the CMA:
- Beginning in 2024, Covered Buildings will have to meet the first emission targets, which are calculated by multiplying the gross floor area of each Covered Building by the occupancy classification as set forth in Local Law 97; and
- In 2025, owners of Covered Buildings will need to establish compliance by submitting a report establishing such compliance (prepared by a certified design professional) to the newly created Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline A. Harcourt, PillsburyMs. Harcourt may be contacted at
caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com
