Sinking Buildings on the Rise?
July 01, 2019 —
Jason M. Adams - Gibbs GidenBy now everyone in the construction and insurance industries is familiar with the 58-story Millennium Tower building in San Francisco that has sunk 17 inches and tilted another 14 inches to the northwest. Another recent New York lawsuit alleges that a 58-story luxury Manhattan condo high-rise is also sinking and causing significant damage. With construction booming in the Southeast and other areas with questionable soils, sinking building cases may be on the rise. Given this reality, the issue of subsidence should be of paramount importance to every construction and insurance professional when insuring a project.
Most insurance carriers will include a subsidence and/or other earth movement exclusion on a commercial general liability ("CGL") quote for insurance as a matter of course. Construction professionals (owners/developers, general contractors, and subcontractors) or their brokers may be under the mistaken impression that they have no choice but to accept these subsidence exclusions as part of a standard construction policy. This is not the case. To the contrary, most insurance carriers are willing to remove subsidence exclusions if the underwriters are provided with acceptable geotechnical/soils reports when considering the project.
The insured construction professional often pushes back on the insurance carrier's request for soils reports because the insured sees the request as an unnecessary hassle, expense or unwelcome interference in the job. However, the carrier's soils review is designed to benefit everyone. If potential soils issues are discovered during the underwriting process they can be addressed at the outset of the project rather than after the project is built, which will typically cost substantially more to remedy. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the condition of the soils at the outset of the project allows the risk management team to recognize any potential issues and ensure that the proper coverage is obtained in order to provide protection down the road. Even if the insurance carrier charges more money to sign off on questionable soils after a review of the reports, the slight increase in premium is likely a worthwhile investment in the event of a subsidence loss.
The lesson is that the insured should not blindly accept a subsidence exclusion and should negotiate its removal. The insured should provide its broker and the insurance carrier the information they need in order to make a fully-informed decision as it pertains to the soils. Once the insurance carrier has had the opportunity to review and sign off on the condition of the soil, the carrier should feel comfortable enough to remove any subsidence exclusions or other similar earth movement limitations.
Subsidence is a relatively straightforward issue to deal with as long as the project team’s lawyers, brokers, risk managers and insurance company underwriters are working together toward the common goal of properly evaluating the risk and adequately insuring the project. This simple cooperative process between the entire risk management team could mean the difference between being covered or not covered in the event of a loss related to earth movement.
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 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.
The content contained herein is published online for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel. The transmission of information by email, or any transmission or exchange of information over the Internet, or by any of the included links is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. This publication may not be reproduced or used in whole or in part without written consent of the author. Copyright 2019 ©
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure
October 19, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a first party bad-faith lawsuit, such as a bad faith claim against an insured’s property insurer, there are three requirements that must be met before the bad faith lawsuit is filed: “‘(1) determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required notice must be filed under section 624.155(3)(a).’” Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation omitted).
The third requirement is for the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (known as a “CRN”) as a condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith lawsuit giving the insurer 60 days’ notice of the bad faith violation and to cure the violation, i.e., pay the claim if the violation is payment.
A very common bad faith payment violation is the assertion that the insurer did NOT attempt “in good faith to settle claims when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regard for his or her interests.” Fla. Stat. s. 624.155(1)(b)(1).
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
DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise
February 18, 2015 —
James Yoder, Michael Onufrak and Siobhan Cole – White and Williams LLPOn Feb. 5, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, per Judge Brendan L. Shannon, entered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the former president and CEO of Ultimate Escapes Inc., James M. Tousignant, and its chairman, Richard Keith, after determining that Tousignant’s actions in negotiating and executing a controversial asset purchase agreement were protected by the business judgment rule, despite the demise of the company a short time later. The failure of a business strategy, in and of itself, does not create liability on the part of the former directors and officers of a bankrupt company.
Background
Ultimate Escapes was a luxury destination club that provided its members with access to high-end vacation residences around the world. Unfortunately, Ultimate Escapes’ business suffered greatly from the economic downturn that began in 2008, and on Sept. 20, 2010, Ultimate Escapes filed voluntary petitions for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
James Yoder,
Michael Onufrak and
Siobhan Cole
Mr. Yoder may be contacted at yoderj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Onufrak may be contacted at onufrakm@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Cole may be contacted at coles@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050
November 18, 2019 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordThe World Green Building Council’s latest maneuver in its war against greenhouse gas emissions is a rallying cry for embodied-carbon reduction in buildings that involves global collaboration, communication, education, innovation and regulation. WGBC’s ambitious aim is to get to net-zero EC in all new construction and renovations by 2050.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.
November 25, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA contractor which designed and constructed a hydroelectric plant in Guatemala sued under the Federal Arbitration Act in federal court in Florida to overturn a project-related arbitration decision, “on the basis that the Tribunal had exceeded its powers.” That petition was denied based upon Eleventh Circuit precedent which foreclosed that challenge under the FAA for an arbitration conducted “under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,” a.k.a., the “New York Convention.”
The U. S. 11th Circuit initially affirmed the lower court decision, but then upon an en banc rehearing reversed: holding that in a New York Convention case where the arbitration seat is in the U. S., or where United States law governs the arbitration conduct, “Chapter 1 of the FAA provides the grounds for vacatur of the arbitral award. … § 208 of the FAA provides that ‘Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under [Chapter 2] to the extent that chapter is not in conflict with [Chapter 2] or the [New York] Convention as ratified by the United States.’ …Chapter 1 of the FAA… thus acts as a gapfiller and provides the vacatur grounds for an international arbitration award otherwise governed by Chapter 2.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back
February 25, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPLast week, the California appellate courts decided two cases with ramifications under the Right to Repair Act. The first case, Burch, addresses whether the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for the homeowner. The second case, KB Home, addresses a situation where a homeowner or the homeowner's insurer fails to follow the procedures under the Right to Repair Act.
Last August, the Fourth Appellate District announced its decision in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 holding that SB 800 is not a homeowner’s exclusive remedy in situations where defects cause actual damage. Many lawyers believed that Liberty Mutual would be a one-off because of its facts – it was a subrogation case brought by an insurance company. So much for that.
Now the Second Appellate District is getting into the act.
In Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., the Second Appellate District overturned an order granting summary adjudication in favor of a developer, general contractor, and their respective owners, in a construction defect action brought by a residential homeowner. The trial court found that the Right to Repair Act precluded the homeowner’s negligence and implied warranty claims but the Court of Appeal reversed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements
October 05, 2020 —
Theresa A. Guertin & Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & VitaRisk transfer in the construction industry depends heavily on industry-standard insurance language. Insurance provisions in subcontracts typically reference ISO standard insurance terminology or endorsements in order to guarantee (or, at least, attempt to secure) coverage for upstream parties. The contract may require, for example, that a subcontractor maintains general liability insurance on a “current ISO occurrence form,” and name upstream parties as additional insureds, and both parties will have a general understanding of what that entails for purposes of risk transfer.
Problems arise, however, when insurance companies stray from standard language, especially on issues that go to the heart of construction risk transfer. In some instances, provisions that track ISO language may contain subtle changes that seem to meet the contractual insurance requirements. Upon closer scrutiny, it could significantly change how a policy will respond to a given claim. Given the extent of potential liability arising from construction projects, if the insurance programs intended to back up risk transfer and indemnity agreements do not respond as expected, all the potentially liable parties may be left in the lurch.
Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at emc@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract
May 10, 2022 —
Ted Senet & Christopher Trembley - Gibbs GidenCalifornia local public agencies and their contractors should take note of a recent appellate decision pertaining to late progress payments on public works projects. In Clark Bros., Inc. v. North Edwards Water Dist., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 331, filed on April 22, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a local agency’s late progress payments to a general contractor did not constitute breach of contract under the prompt payment penalty statute, Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Notwithstanding this holding, the contractor recovered damages, interest, fees, and costs in excess of its contract amount.
In 2013, the North Edwards Water District awarded a $6.2 million contract to Clark Bros., Inc. to construct a water treatment facility. The District’s water contained excessive levels of arsenic, and the project was sponsored by the State of California with funds earmarked to provide safe drinking water. The State agreed to disburse funds to the District during construction upon the State’s review and approval of the contractor’s progress payment applications. The contract required completion of the work within one year following the District’s issuance of a notice to proceed to the contractor.
As a result of factors arguably outside the control of the contractor, including unforeseen site conditions and the failure of the District’s equipment supplier to meet delivery deadlines, the project was significantly delayed beyond the deadline for completion. The District nonetheless terminated the contractor, which in turn filed suit against the District and the State. The contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the contractor’s progress payment applications within the time specified under Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Subsection (b) of the statute provides:
Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted Senet, Gibbs Giden and
Christopher Trembley, Gibbs Giden
Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com
Mr. Trembley may be contacted at Ctrembley@gibbsgiden.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
