Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court
March 12, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn 1997, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) decided Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Prop. Corp., 85 Haw. 286, 944 P.2d 83 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997). Although not an insurance coverage case, Pancakes addressed the duty to defend in terms of a contractual indemnity obligation. Under challenge in a recent appeal before the ICA, the Court reaffirmed the holding in Pancakes. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 109 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015).
The decision is long with detailed facts complicated and many indemnities running in favor of various parties. This post focuses on the decision's discussion of Pancakes.
A resident, Mona Arthur, of the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development, was killed when she apparently slipped and fell from a hillside adjacent to the project. She was on the hillside tending to her garden there. At the bottom of the hill was a two foot fence in front of a drainage ditch, where Mona allegedly hit her head.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results
October 21, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.”
Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage.
Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards
March 22, 2017 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogJD Supra, one of the world’s leading content distribution companies for the legal industry, announced its Readers’ Choice Awards for 2017 earlier this week. We were honored to be among a group of 200 authors selected from over 40,000 who published legal news, commentary and analysis on legal issues of importance to the clients we serve.
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
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations
August 20, 2019 —
Jessica Burtnett & Jessica N. Kull - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client after oral argument for a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull represented an insurance broker who was sued by one of its customers, a property management company, for failure to procure a correct policy of insurance that would have provided coverage for an underlying class action lawsuit asserting statutory violations.
In their motion, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the Plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable two year statute of limitations outlined in the Illinois Insurance Producers Act 735 ILCS 5/13-214.4. Based on a recent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, ¶ 13, reh’g denied (Nov. 26, 2018), Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the statute of limitations began to accrue at the moment the allegedly non-conforming policy was delivered to the customer Plaintiff. In this case, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the subject policy was purchased and received before it became effective on November 25, 2015. Thus, at the absolute latest, the statute of limitations expired two years later on November 25, 2017. Since the lawsuit was not filed until October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was approximately 10 months too late to assert a valid claim.
In response, the Plaintiff tried to factually distinguish the Krop case by arguing it involved a claim against a captive agent rather than a broker. Plaintiff further argued that a broker maintains a fiduciary duty to its clients and, therefore, the two year statute of limitations applied in Krop did not apply to a broker. Plaintiff also argued the Illinois Insurance Placement Liability Act was unconstitutional.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Burtnett, Traub Lieberman and
Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Burtnett may be contacted at jburtnett@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos
February 01, 2022 —
Rafael Boza - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIf you are a construction contractor, you deal with performance bonds as part of your business and daily work. They are necessary for almost every project you are participating or will participate in, and, along with other sister bonds, constitute a basic tool to be able to work in construction. However, how much do you really know about this tool? Who in your organization knows how to use it? Are you relying on your insurance broker to procure the bonds? Can your broker competently review the terms of the bond? Are you, as a contractor, relying on the surety to explain and determine what you need for the project—a fox guarding the hen house?
To understand how a performance bond works and how to effectively tailor it to your needs, we need to understand the basics. What is a performance bond? Who are the parties to a performance bond? What does performance bond not do? What should be covered under a performance bond? How does a performance bond fit in a company’s overall risk management processes? A clear understanding of these and other basic topics will facilitate operations and reduce the risk of claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rafael Boza, PillsburyMr. Boza may be contacted at
rafael.boza@pillsburylaw.com
California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision
April 20, 2020 —
J. Kelby Van Patten - Payne & FearsIn Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted.
Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & FearsMr. Van Patten may be contacted at
kvp@paynefears.com
A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases
December 13, 2021 —
Lewis BrisboisNew York, N.Y. (November 9, 2021) - As the winter season nears, defendant property owners are reminded that New York law imposes liability for sidewalk accidents resulting from slip and falls on snow and ice. Within the City of New York, Administrative Code § 7-210 imposes liability on the owners of real property (other than single-family dwellings) to maintain an abutting sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, which includes the removal of snow and ice.
Some of the most important issues in this area of the law were recently reaffirmed by New York’s Appellate Division in Zamora v. David Caccavo, LLC, 190 A.D.3d 895 (2d Dept. 2021). In particular, that the Court of Appeals made clear in 2019 that the statutory non-delegable duty to remove snow and ice from sidewalks extends even to out-of-possession landowners, who, although they may shift the work of maintaining the sidewalk to another, "cannot shift the duty, nor exposure and liability for injuries caused by negligent maintenance, imposed under [Administrative Code §] 7-210." Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 167, 174 (2019). In other words, even if the defendant leases the property to a tenant who is obligated under the lease to maintain the property in every way, including snow and ice on sidewalks, the defendant cannot escape liability by claiming the tenant is solely responsible for the plaintiff’s loss. On the other hand, property owners are not strictly liable for all personal injuries that occur on the abutting sidewalks, because the statute "adopts a duty and standard of care that accords with traditional tort principles of negligence and causation." Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d at 171.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors
September 23, 2024 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors.
This case involved roof and structural damage to a warehouse in Baltimore, Maryland that Duke owned. In March 2014, Amazon entered into a development agreement with Duke for the construction of the warehouse. Amazon also agreed to subsequently lease the warehouse from Duke. Although Amazon essentially owned and/or developed the project, the development agreement identified Duke as “Landlord” and Amazon as “Tenant.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
