Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim
May 19, 2011 —
Tred R. EyerlyThe importance of careful preparation and documentation was the take away lesson in a Texas bad faith case, C.K. Lee v. Catlin Specialty Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19145 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2011).
C.K. Lee owned a commercial shopping center in Houston. Catlin issued a commercial property policy to Lee. On September 12, 2008, Hurricane Ike hit and caused substantial property damage throughout the Texas Gulf Coast area. On September 24, 2008, Lee submitted a claim for damage to the roof of his shopping center to Catlin.
Catlin hired Engle Martin to represent its interests in adjusting the claim. Engle Martin eventually adjusted over 200 Ike-related claims for Catlin.
In November 2008, Engle Martin and Emergency Services Inc., retained by Lee, inspected Lee’s property. Engle Martin observed evidence of roof repairs that had apparently been made both before and after Hurricane Ike. Engle Martin decided it was necessary to use an infrared scan of the roof to help identify which damages, if any, were attributable to wind and which, if any, were attributable to sub par, prior repairs or natural deterioration.
Engle Martin retained Project, Time & Cost (PT&C) to conduct the infrared inspection. PT&C’s inspection determined there was no wind-related damage to the roof and no breaches or openings created by wind. Instead, the roof had exceeded its life expectancy and was in need of replacement due to normal wear and weathering. Consequently, Catlin decided that the damage to Lee’s roof was not caused by winds from Hurricane Ike.
Meanwhile, Lee’s contractor, Emergency Services, prepared a report estimating that the total cost of repairing the roof would be $871,187. Engle Martin’s estimate for repair of the roof was $22,864.
Lee filed suit for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. Catlin moved for summary judgment on all claims but breach of contract, arguing that because there was a bona fide dispute concerning the cause of the damages and whether they were covered under the policy, there was no evidence of bad faith or violations of the Texas Insurance Code.
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
Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage
January 28, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer properly denied coverage for collapse of a building when the insured knew from an expert’s examination that the walls of his house were deteriorating. Jaimes v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2018 U. S. Dust. LEXIS 198224 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2018).
The insured discovered a crack in the wall of his home. He hired Anchor Engineering to inspect. Anchor found a large bulge in the south wall. Several problems with deterioration were noted in the basement. The structure of the house was unstable and dangerous.
The insured filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Liberty. The claim was denied because damage to the wall was the result of deterioration.
The south wall of the house later collapsed. The insured submitted a second claim. Liberty again denied the claim because the collapse was the result of deterioration of the wall. The insured sued.
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
New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida
December 16, 2019 —
Brian A. Wolf & Miles D. Jolley - Smith CurrieSubcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath.
The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence.
Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and
Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie
Mr. Wolf may be contacted at bawolf@smithcurrie.com
Mr. Jolley may be contacted at mdjolley@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Default, Fraud, and VCPA (Oh My!)
September 12, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI’ve discussed the
Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and the interaction between
fraud and contract on numerous occasions here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case from the Eastern District of Virginia District Court discusses this interaction (along with
that dreaded default) further.
In
Bhutta v. DRM Construction Corp., the homeowners, the Bhuttas, sued DRM for breach of contract, conversion, fraud, and a violation of the VCPA. These allegations were based upon DRM having taken a $40,000.00 deposit from the Bhuttas and then failing to even begin work. As you may have guessed from the title of this post, DRM did not respond to the Complaint and the Court granted default. The Court then took up the question of whether the Bhuttas had alleged enough on each count for default judgment on those counts. After going through a procedural recitation and finding that DRM was properly served and that the Court had jurisdiction, the Court got to the meat of the matter.
The Court held that the Bhuttas properly plead a breach of contract for the obvious reason. The reason was that DRM never performed any work and the Bhuttas were damaged because they both paid the deposit and also had to hire another contractor to complete the work at a higher price. The Court granted default judgment for breach of contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages
November 05, 2014 —
Jody Shenn - BloombergCount Two Harbors Investment Corp. (TWO) among investors looking for profits in riskier home loans -- and expecting a market for bonds backed by them to re-emerge even with safer issuance showing limited signs of life.
The real-estate investment trust, whose 74 percent total return over the past three years is almost double that of peers, recently told the lenders that have been selling it big, high-quality mortgages that it’s now also seeking to purchase non-prime loans and those with low down payments, Chief Investment Officer Bill Roth said today during a conference call for analysts and investors.
“Our expectation and certainly hope would be as this market opens up and becomes fairly meaningful that a securitization market would develop,” he said. Of course, he sees the timeline as “probably measured in years, not months.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jody Shenn, BloombergMs. Shenn may be contacted at
jshenn@bloomberg.net
No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy
March 12, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014).
Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States.
After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle
December 20, 2017 —
Dave Suggs - CDJ STAFFSeattle Washington is experiencing a shortage of in-city condos. Of the 27,000 units of new housing being built in downtown Seattle, 94 percent will be rentals. As housing prices are rising in the US’s fastest-growing large city, the median home price is $660,000. Dean Jones of the Seattle Magazine reports on why consumers consider condos, but home developers don’t in his article “The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle.”
Reason 1, condominiums don’t always offer high returns and can be riskier for the home developer. Reason 2, the Washington State Condo Act “overprotects” buyers of condos with over-the-top warranties that makes everyone in the industry afraid to work with condos. Reason 3, the cost of condo building is increased because of the risk of defect litigation. Reason 4, condo presale buyers are not required to deposit a percentage to invest in a new development and before closing could decide to walk away. Reason 5, there is a lot of interest in apartment buildings from investment groups.
Reason 6, investors whose goal is to own “trophy” assets in rising markets can’t wait the years it takes developers to plan and construct a new multistory community. Reason 7, since rent prices have risen 50 percent on average in the last 7 years, it’s profitable to be a landlord. Reason 8, the millennials who live and work in this tech oriented region prefer to rent because of living through the rise and fall of the housing market. Reason 9, the costs is rising each year to deliver new projects. Reason 10, high-rise zoning was adopted 2 years before the recession, so just as condo development was gearing up, apartment building took over.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent
May 13, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesArbitration provisions are enforceable and they are becoming more challenging to circumvent, especially if one of the parties to the arbitration agreement wants to arbitrate a dispute versus litigate a dispute. Remember this when agreeing to an arbitration provision as the forum for dispute resolution in your contract. There is not a one-size-fits-all model when it comes to arbitration provisions and how they are drafted. But, there is a very strong public policy in favor of honoring a contractual arbitration provision because this is what the parties agreed to as the forum to resolve their disputes.
By way of example, in Austin Commercial, L.P. v. L.M.C.C. Specialty Contractors, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D925a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), a subcontractor and prime contactor entered into a consultant agreement that contained the following arbitration provision:
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof shall be subject to the dispute resolution procedures, if any, set out in the Prime Contract between [Prime Contractor] and the [Owner]. Should the Prime Contract contain no specific requirement for the resolution of disputes or should the [Owner] not be involved in the dispute, any such controversy or claim shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association then prevailing, and judgment upon the award by the Arbitrator(s) shall be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof.
The prime contract between the owner and prime contractor did not require arbitration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
