Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence
August 06, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiWhen two boys drowned at a summer camp, the issue arose as to whether there were one or two occurrences. Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. AXIS Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13176 (8th Cir. July 11, 2014).
The two boys could not swim, and their camp permission forms indicated that they were non-swimmers. One night, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) had a pool party. After the party, the FCA staff realized the two boys were missing. They had drowned, and their bodies were found lying side-by-side at the bottom of the deep end of the pool. The death certificate for one boy listed the time of death as 10:44 p.m., while the other boy's time of death was listed as 10:42 p.m.
The FCA was insured under three policies. AXIS Insurance Company insured FCA under a CGL policy with $1 million limits per occurrence and $5 million in the aggregate. The FCA also had two umbrella policies, one issued by Ironshore Speciality Insurance Company, which provided up to $10 million in coverage in excess of Axis's policy. Under the second umbrella policy, RSUI Indemnity Company covered up to $5 million in excess of the Axis and Ironshore policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Stormy Skies Ahead? Important News Regarding a Hard Construction Insurance Market
August 13, 2019 —
Jason M. Adams - Gibbs GidenWord out of the construction insurance brokerage community is that the construction insurance industry has entered a hard market, seemingly overnight. Property (i.e. builder’s risk), liability and wrap-up markets are all reacting unfavorably, resulting in higher premiums and decreased availability of coverage options.
The prospect of a hard market has been looming for some time given massive weather driven property losses and historically low rates (among other factors). It appears the time is upon us.
Key takeaways for construction professionals are:
- Expect insurance premiums to go up, potentially significantly, at renewal time and/or when seeking a new project specific program (e.g., an OCIP, CCIP, etc.).
- Expect that the available coverage will get worse. Carriers may be unable to offer once standard coverage enhancements and/or may add new exclusions.
- If quotes have been offered consider locking them in now, before the underwriters are forced to increase the rates/restrict coverage, or pull the quotes entirely.
- With respect to wrap-ups and other project specific programs, consider requesting extensions now if the project is expected to go beyond the current policy term.
- As always, the risk management team (lawyer, broker, risk manager) should work together to carefully review contracts and coverage. This will become even more important if the carriers start to introduce new exclusions as a result of the hard market.
Hard markets come and go. The tough times are when true construction insurance professionals separate themselves from the pack and become the key to weathering the storm.
Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Business/Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at jadams@gibbsgiden.com. Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects
February 18, 2019 —
Alex R. Bagdassarian & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & AbramsonWhat California Contractors Need To Know About AB 3018
California contractors used to face limited consequences for non-compliance with the state’s skilled and trained workforce requirements on public works projects. A sea-change to the statutory landscape went into effect on January 1, 2019 as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3018 (“AB 3018”).1 The Code re-defines what constitutes a skilled/trained workforce by eliminating existing exemptions, strengthens monthly reporting guidelines and agency oversight, and empowers the Labor Commissioner and public agencies with enforcement tools that include monetary penalties and debarment. Contractors who fail to institute a program to comply with AB 3018’s reporting requirements do so at their peril.
What Does The 30% Requirement Mean?
Previously, in order to comply with the skilled workforce requirements2, 30% of skilled journeypersons had to be graduates of an apprenticeship program, except for certain listed trades which were exempt from the apprenticeship percentage requirement3. AB 3018 eliminates this exception for the listed occupations and requires 30% of all trades to be comprised of apprenticeship program graduates.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson and
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at Abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance
December 20, 2017 —
Lizbeth Dison - AHC Contruction Law BlogThe recent case of Fulton County v. Soco Contracting Company, Inc. addresses two very interesting questions for local government attorneys. First, can a county ordinance bolster a defense of sovereign immunity against a contractor’s claims? Second, can a county waive sovereign immunity by failing to respond to Requests for Admission?
Facts:
County hired Contractor to construct a facility near the airport. The contract provided that change orders must satisfy a county ordinance, which required approval by the Board of Commissioners. But in emergency situations, the County Manager could approve change orders, as long as the contractor executes a proposed modification and the purchasing agent approves it.
The project suffered substantial delays, which Contractor attributed to weather, design delays, delays by the County in providing decisions on changes, and delays in obtaining permits during the federal government’s shutdown. As a result of these issues, Contractor comes County changed the scope of the contract. Contractor asserted claims against County for the delays and the changes to the work. The appellate opinion addresses the change order claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lizbeth Dison, Autry Hall & Cook, LLP
University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan
August 07, 2023 —
Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-RecordA nearly $2-billion funding plan approved by University of Tennessee trustees signals the go-ahead for 15 new capital projects at five locations including research, science and housing facilities along with a planned entertainment district for Neyland Stadium, home of the university's football team.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage
July 30, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor.
McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control.
In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims.
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
Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFA California appeals court has ruled that developers cannot enforce CC&Rs in a case where a developer cited an arbitration clause it had inserted into the CC&R. The homeowners are alleging construction defect and wished to sue the developer who claimed a right to this under the CC&Rs.
The Marina del Rey Argonaut reports that particular appeal dealt only with whether the developer could compel arbitration. The underlying construction defect issues will subsequently have to be determined at trial.
The attorney for the homeowners’ association, Dan Clifford, noted that “arbitration has to be agreed to by both parties.” The covenant was drafted by the developer and in addition to requiring arbitration, it had a clause that it could not be amended without the consent of the developers. The court ruled that CC&Rs “can be enforced only by the homeowners association, the owner of a condominium or both.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Economic Loss Not Property Damage
November 04, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insured subcontractor's economic losses did not amount to covered property damage. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23949 (5th Cir. Aug 12, 2019).
Capsco Industries, Inc. was a subcontractor on the construction of a casino. Capsco subcontracted with Ground Control to install water, sewage, and storm-drain lines. Ground Control was terminated from the project by the general contractor for alleged safety violations and failed drug tests of its employees. Ground Control sued in state court against multiple parties, including Capsco, seeking payment for work on the project. The claims were dismissed on summary judgment because neither party had obtained the required certificates of responsibility from the state, making the parties' contract void. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed the contract was void, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings based solely on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.
While the state case was on remand, Capsco's liability insurers, Greenwich Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company, filed a compliant for declaratory judgment in federal district court seeking a declaration that they did not owe a defense or indemnity to Capsco. The defendants were Ground Control, Capsco, the general contractor, and the casino owner. The latter two parties were dismissed. Ground Control counterclaimed for coverage of its claims against Capsco. The district court stayed proceedings until the state court litigation ended.
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
