Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker
December 07, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Casey L. Coffey - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn November 10, 2020, a New York federal judge dismissed an insurer’s counterclaims seeking to cap its exposure under a $15 million sublimit and an order estopping the policyholder from pursuing any additional amounts.
In February 2017, Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington), suffered between $60 and $100 million in damage from a tornado that struck its glass manufacturing factory in Illinois. Pilkington sought coverage for its loss under a commercial property and business interruption policy issued by Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (MSI). Pilkington also claimed its insurance broker, Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. (Aon), is liable for faulty advice provided while brokering the policy. Aon’s negligence allegedly gave way to MSI’s fraudulent revision of the insurance policy, which caused the losses from the tornado to not be fully compensable.
Pilkington’s fraud and faulty brokering claims stem from MSI’s revision of an endorsement contained in the policy. The revision changed the wording of a windstorm sublimit. Allegedly, Aon was informed by MSI of the changes and failed to inform Pilkington that the revision would substantially reduce coverage for windstorms, including tornados.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence
June 10, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Albert v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (No. B257792, filed 4/28/15, ord. pub. 5/20/15), a California Court of Appeal held that an insured’s trimming of a neighbor’s trees which allegedly damaged the trees was not an accident or occurrence covered by her homeowners insurance, despite a mistaken and good faith belief as to where the property line lay.
Ms. Albert was sued by her adjoining neighbor, who alleged damage to his property when she erected an encroaching fence and pruned nine mature olive trees on his property. The two parcels shared a reciprocal roadway easement providing for access to the main public road. At some point, Ms. Albert erected a fence that was subsequently determined to be on the neighbor’s land, and which enclosed a grove of nine mature olive trees. Ms. Albert claimed that the trees straddled the property line and were mutually owned. She pointed out that she had regularly been notified by the Los Angeles Fire Department to clear the area, and that she had been trimming the trees for years. Thus, she claimed a good faith belief that the trees were hers and that she was required to trim them.
Contending that her trimming had caused severe damage by reducing the aesthetic and monetary value of the trees, the neighbor sued alleging causes of action for trespass to real property and trees; abatement of private nuisance; declaratory relief; and for quiet title. He sought treble damages under Civil Code sections 733 and 3346, for injury to timber or trees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims
June 18, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. (No. B245961, filed 5/16/14, ord. pub. 6/13/14), a California appeals court held that the insured's use of the wrong steel seismic reinforcement hooks in construction of a mixed-use building was not an occurrence, and did not result in covered property damage.
Regional Steel was the structural steel subcontractor on a 14-story mixed-use project in North Hollywood, California. Regional supplied plans which were approved by the developer and its structural engineers for installation of steel reinforcements, including seismic reinforcement hooks, to be encased in concrete. During construction, City inspectors determined that the plans called for the wrong hooks, necessitating repairs to finished portions of the work and delays in further construction. This ultimately resulted in a lawsuit between the developer, Regional Steel, the concrete subcontractor, the structural engineer and a quality assurance inspector.
The project was insured under a wrap policy issued to the developer, with Regional named as an additional insured. The court rejected an argument that the wrap endorsement fundamentally changed the insurance, and the issue boiled down to whether incorporation of the wrong hooks, the damage caused by tearing out concrete to replace the hooks, or the resulting loss of use, triggered coverage. Liberty asserted that no damage to property was alleged and the purely economic losses caused by the need to reopen the poured concrete to correct the tie hook problem did not constitute "property damage" within the meaning of the policy. Liberty further posited that the tie hook problem did not constitute an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy because the alleged damage was not caused by an accident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”
July 03, 2022 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and WilliamsIn an important ruling for insurers, U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris found that Massachusetts does not follow the position taken in Cypress Point Condo Association v. Adria Towers, LLC, 226 N.J. 403, 418 (2016), i.e., it does not hold that "faulty workmanship claims [should be recognized] as ... an 'occurrence,' thus triggering coverage, 'so long as the allegedly defective work [was] performed by a subcontractor rather than the policyholder itself."
[1]
Instead, Judge Saris reaffirmed earlier Massachusetts authority holding faulty work is not an "occurrence" for coverage purposes,
[2] and found this authority applied whether or not the work in question was subcontracted.
In the alternative, Judge Saris found, even if a contractor's faulty work could be deemed an an "occurrence," such work did not constitute covered "property damage," because none of the alleged damage was "outside the scope of the work that Tocci was contractually required to fulfill as general contractor."
[3]
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and
Austin D. Moody, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers
December 08, 2016 —
Johanna Knapschaefer – Engineering News-RecordThe Massachusetts Dept. of Transportation and a contracting team are in discussions regarding fabrication issues that caused a two-year delay in the completion of a key crossing between Quincy and Weymouth. The full completion of the $244-million Fore River Bridge replacement, originally slated for Jan. 5, 2017, is now projected for February 2019.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Johanna Knapschaefer, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr.com@bnpmedia.com
Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones
August 11, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Seattle Times reports that a transit construction project has uncovered about twenty-five gravestones. The area was historically sensitive, as it is in territory once occupied by the Puyallup Tribe. At current report, no human remains have been found and the article cites the project?s archeological consultant as describing the gravestones as “not historically significant.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment
November 21, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA collapsed floor in a restaurant was found to be covered. J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163661 (D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2022).
J&J Fish rented property from Vision. Vision was obligated to keep the premises insured under an all-risk policy. Vision was also responsible for maintaining and repairing the property "including the slab flooring exterior walls of the premises." Vision never obtained insurance on the building, but J&J Fish secured a commercial property policy from Crum & Forster.
On May 29, 2020, approximately 25% of the building's slab floor, the section beneath the walk-in cooler, collapsed into the crawl space below. Dr. Daniel Wojnowski inspected the crawl space and observed overall dampness as well as a pool of water in the space. He concluded that the collapse occurred because the steel support beams and steel elements of the floor corroded after prolonged exposure to moisture. Based on this report, Crum & Forster denied coverage. J&J Fish sued and the parties moved for summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
