Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN
May 28, 2024 —
Jessica Knox - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Fischer Homes
Email: paul@jpaulallen.com
Law School: Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University (JD 1992)
States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Missouri, Florida
Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel.
A: I started at a large Cincinnati firm straight out of law school. I moved in-house for a client of the firm after about 8 years and have remained in-house ever since. The in-house experience has been rewarding and varied over the last 24 years. I have worked for a Fortune 500, publicly traded steel company, a private equity led construction products company, and, finally, a family-owned residential homebuilder. I had the good fortune to be General Counsel at the last 2 in-house companies and was able to establish a legal department from scratch at Fischer Homes. As time went on and I gained experience, I stayed in-house because of the ability to work for a single client and have a greater impact on the business side of things.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Knox, Stinson LLPMs. Knox may be contacted at
jessica.knox@stinson.com
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
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. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What is an Alternative Dispute Resolution?
August 26, 2019 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPAlternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) is a term that refers to a number of processes that can be used to resolve a conflict, dispute, or claim. ADR processes are alternatives to having a court decide the dispute in trial.
ADR processes can be used to resolve any type of dispute including but not limited those related to families, neighborhoods, employment, businesses, housing, personal injury, consumers, and the environment. ADR is usually less formal, less expensive, and less time-consuming than a trial.
Most Common Types of Alternative Dispute Resolutions
Mediation
In mediation, an impartial person called a “mediator” helps the parties try to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not decide the dispute but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves. Mediation leaves control of the outcome with the parties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/6/24) – Construction Tech Deals Surge, Senators Reintroduce Housing Bill, and Nonresidential Spending Drops
September 16, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, cybersecurity attacks target contractors, U.S. banks report weaker profits, additional commercial real estate is distressed, and more!
- Spending dropped in almost half of nonresidential subcategories in June, with the decrease stemming from higher interest rates, tighter credit conditions and a softening economy. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
- Despite the decline in investment dollars for construction technology, the number of deals surged by 18% year-over-year, indicating sustained interest and activity in the sector. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
- As cybersecurity attacks on U.S.-based businesses ramp up, general contractors are not immune. (Jen A. Miller, Construction Dive)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity
May 13, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him.
Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit.
While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute.
The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case
October 21, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomBoston, Mass. (October 14, 2024) - Boston Managing Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Partner Matthew M. O' Leary recently secured summary judgment on behalf of a civil engineering firm in a serious personal injury matter arising from a trip-and-fall incident in a mall parking lot.
The client was retained to provide site civil engineering design for the parking lot of a local mall. The design included multiple bioretention areas known as rain gardens. In November of 2019, a woman tripped and fell while attempting to cross a rain garden to reach her car. She suffered significant bodily injuries, including a fracture of the cervical spine that resulted in partial paralysis.
The woman and her husband sued the mall's owner for negligence and loss of consortium in June 2021. The owner, in turn, impleaded Lewis Brisbois' client and the lot's builder, asserting third-party claims for contribution, contractual and common law indemnity, and breach of contract. In addition, the builder cross-claimed against Lewis Brisbois' client for contribution and common law indemnity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts
July 30, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGiven the variety of problems that can arise on a construction project, from defects to delays, it’s difficult to draft a construction contract that addresses every possible problem exactly right. However, so long as you adequately address the “big three” of scope, price and time, it’s also difficult to draft a construction contract wrong.
That is, with one exception.
And that one exception, in California, is home improvement contracts. In 2004, the California State Legislature enacted the state’s Home Improvement Business statute (Bus. & Prof. Code §§7150 et seq.). Section 7159 of the statute sets forth what must be included in home improvement contracts.
It’s a section that could have been written by Felix Unger of the Odd Couple. In addition to setting forth required language that must be included in a home improvement contract, it directs where that language is to be set forth in a home improvement contract, and even how it is to be presented, down to type sizes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Court Denies Insurers' Motions for Summary Judgment Under All Risk Policies
June 05, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found that the insurers could not escape coverage by summary judgment under their all risk policies. Eagle Harbour Condo Assoc'n v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54761 (W.D. Wash. April 10, 2017).
Eagle Harbour Condominium Association sued several of its insurers who denied coverage for hidden water damage. Various insurers provided coverage from 1988 to 2015.
The Association asserted that wind-driven rain and inadequate construction allowed water to penetrate the buildings' sheathing and framing, causing decades of deterioration and decay, until the damage was exposed to view in August 2014. The insurers claimed that the loss resulted from poor decisions in constructing and inadequately maintaining a stucco building in the wet and windy Pacific Northwest. The Association argued that the policies did not explicitly exclude damage caused by wind-driven rain, so there was coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
