Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe Georgia Supreme Court has determined that an "occurrence" may arise under a CGL policy even if "other property" is not damaged. Taylor Morrison Servs. v. HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co., 2013 Ga. LEXIS 618 (Ga. July 12, 2013).
Taylor Morrison, the insured, was a homebuilder. It was sued in a class action by more than 400 homeowners in California alleging that the concrete foundations of their homes were improperly constructed. This led to water intrusion, cracks in the floors and driveways, and warped and buckled flooring.
At first, HDI-Gerling defended under a reservation of rights. Subsequently, however, HDI-Gerling sued Taylor Morrison in federal district court in Georgia, seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to HDI-Gerling after determining that there was no "occurrence" when the only "property damage" alleged was damage to work of the insured. Georgia law was applied to the dispute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis
November 09, 2020 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogInsureds often request independent counsel when insurers agree to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights, pursuant to which an insurer takes the position that certain damages may not be indemnifiable. Requests for independent counsel are often rooted in fear that a defense attorney who has a relationship with the insurer may be incentivized to defend the insured in a way that maximizes the potential for the insurer to succeed on its coverage defenses. As explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in Maryland Cas. Co. v. Peppers, 355 N.E.2d 24 (Ill. 1976), when a conflict of interest arises between an insurer and its insured, the attorney appointed by the insurer is faced with serious ethical questions and the insured is entitled to its own attorney.
Illinois courts generally follow the rule that an insured is entitled to independent counsel upon a showing of an actual conflict. In Builders Concrete Servs., LLC v. Westfield Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 19 C 7792, 2020 WL 5518474 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently addressed a dispute between an insurer and its insured about independent counsel.
Westfield insured Builders Concrete Services (BCS). Focus Construction hired BCS as a subcontractor to perform concrete work on a new apartment building. BCS’ work included pouring concrete for structural columns, one of which buckled and failed. BCS sued Focus Construction for withholding payment, and Focus Construction counter-sued for breach of contract and negligence relating to BCS’ alleged faulty work that caused the column to fall. Focus Construction’s counterclaim alleged that the column failure damaged other parts of the building on which Builders did not perform work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide
February 27, 2023 —
Michael S. Zicherman - Peckar & AbramsonPeckar & Abramson partner
Michael S. Zicherman is the author of the United States chapter of
Mondaq‘s 2023 “Construction Comparative Guide.” The Guide provides an overview of some of the key points of construction law and practice and allows readers to compare regulatory environments and laws across multiple jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Qatar, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, and United Arab Emirates.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit
July 31, 2018 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistIn Davison v. Debest Plumbing, Inc., 416 P.3d 943 (Ida. 2018), the Supreme Court of Idaho addressed the issue of whether plaintiffs who provided actual notice of a defective condition, but not written notice as stated in the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act (NORA), Idaho Code §§ 6-2501 to 6-2504, et. seq., substantially complied with the act and if the plaintiffs’ notice was sufficient to bring suit. Section 6-2503 of the NORA states that, “[p]rior to commencing an action against a construction professional for a construction defect, the claimant shall serve written notice of claim on the construction professional. The notice of claim shall state that the claimant asserts a construction defect claim against the construction professional and shall describe the claim in reasonable detail sufficient to determine the general nature of the defect.” Any action not complying with this requirement should be dismissed without prejudice. The court held that the defendant’s actual notice of the defect was sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the NORA and, thus, the plaintiffs’ action complied with the NORA.
In Davison, Scott and Anne Davison hired general contractor Gould Custom Builders (Gould) to remodel a vacation home in McCall, Idaho. Gould subcontracted out the plumbing work to Debest Plumbing (Debest). This work included installing a bathtub. When the Davisons arrived at their home for the first time on July 25, 2013, they noticed a leak from the subject bathtub. The Davisons contacted Gould and, the next morning, Gil Gould arrived with a Debest employee to inspect the home. In addition to inspecting the home, the Debest employee repaired the leak and helped Gould remove some water-damaged material.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage
September 06, 2021 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanTenders for additional insured coverage in construction accidents are frequently litigated in New York courts. Although the past few years have seen changes in the law regarding the causal nexus between the named insured’s work and coverage for the purported additional insured, courts often find there is at least a duty to defend the additional insured where there are allegations of the employer/subcontractor’s presence at the site.
An exception is the recent decision in Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Index No. 652669/20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Lebovits, J.). In that case, Gemini insured the owner and general contractor of a construction project, and Lloyd’s insured the injured claimant’s employer under a policy endorsed to provide additional insured coverage to entities who “have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement” with the named insured that they must be “added as additional insured.” Although the court found that the contracts here satisfied this requirement for additional insured coverage, the court’s analysis did not end there.
Noting that even where such contract exists, the Lloyd’s policy would not provide additional insured coverage “in all circumstances” (emphasis in original), the court next considered whether the underlying injury was “caused in whole or in part by: 1. [The named insured’s] acts or omissions, or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [the named insured’s] behalf,” as required under the endorsement’s wording.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year
March 19, 2024 —
Linda Carter - Kahana FeldKahana Feld congratulates Co-Founding Partner Jason Daniel Feld, Esq., for being named one of three finalists for Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year.
Mr. Feld is a nationwide leader in construction claims and an active industry speaker, serving as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers, and personal counsel to multiple national and regional homebuilders, developers, and general contractors.
Co-Founding Partner, Amir Kahana, states, “Jason is incredibly deserving of this recognition. When he joined our firm, we were 3 lawyers in one city, and seven years later, we are a national firm with over 65 attorneys in 10 cities and 6 states. Jason is a natural leader who is highly respected. He has earned the trust of his carrier clients, as well as his colleagues in the industry. In addition to everything he does for Kahana Feld, he also works tirelessly on behalf of CLM and has been a great leader in the Orange County Chapter. I am thrilled to see Jason receive the recognition he richly deserves.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Carter, Kahana FeldMs. Carter may be contacted at
lcarter@kahanafeld.com
Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks
June 20, 2022 —
Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ StaffResidents of the Mission Bay neighborhood seek “to hold the City of San Francisco responsible for raising up the sinking sidewalks” reported
KRON 4. The suit alleges that the city should shoulder the responsibility for the necessary work needed for the infrastructure.
Historically, “the neighborhood around the Chase Center east of Interstate 280 was part of the bay,” according to
SF Gate. Later, “the area was filled with dirt and rock and further filled with rubble after the 1906 earthquake.” In 1998, further development took place. All of the “new occupied buildings in Mission Bay, such as the UCSF campus, the Chase Center and the 6,000 residential units there, are anchored into the bedrock," but "the sidewalks, streets and parks are not, and that's a problem.”
"We're not asking for a handout; we're asking for a hand. We want them to step forward and make the repairs that they can actually implement,"
Scott Mackey, Partner at
Berding | Weil, told
CBS News. "Everyone understood that it's built on fill and built in an area where there would be some settlement. But, there also is an expectation that when the city turns over the infrastructure that that homeowners and property owners have to maintain, is that it's built correctly - that they're able to maintain it. The homeowners cannot continually chase the differential movement.”
Read the full story at KRON 4...
Read the full story at SF Gate...
Read the full story at CBS News... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”
September 13, 2021 —
Tracy D. Forbath - Lewis BrisboisIn Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine.
In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.)
However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis BrisboisMs. Forbath may be contacted at
Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com
