Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action
August 03, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer.
After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions.
The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation.
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
To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act
March 29, 2017 —
Richard W. Brown & Afua Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Faced with the issue of whether maritime or state law should be applied to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract (MSC), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that where there is no historical treatment of the contract in question (1), it would consider six factors established in Davis (2).
In Doiron, the Apache Corporation and STS (3) entered a broad-form blanket MSC, under which STS agreed to perform flow-back services, a process designed to dislodge solid objects from inside a well, on Apache’s well located off shore of Louisiana. The MSC also contained an indemnification provision, which required STS to defend and indemnify Apache and its company groups against all claims of property injury or bodily injury. During the flow-back operation, Larry Doiron Inc. (LDI), one of the Apache Company groups, supplied a crane barge for use by STS employees. Subsequently, the crane knocked over an STS employee, causing him to suffer severe injuries. LDI then made a formal demand to STS for defense and indemnification. STS rejected the demand and argued that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act applied to the MSC instead of maritime law. Pursuant to the Act, indemnity clauses in agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas or water are void as against public policy. But, under maritime law, the enforcement of such provisions is not barred. Therefore, if the MSC was construed under the Act, STS had no duty to defend or indemnify LDI.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers
December 27, 2021 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationFor over twenty years, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell has embodied and exemplified the principles of service and stewardship. In everything we do, we focus on serving our clients selflessly and to the best of our ability. In doing so, we always have in the forefront of our minds our obligation to act as the stewards of our clients’ trust, confidences, and resources. The firm itself, along with Carin Ramirez (in the area of Litigation - Insurance), and Dave McLain (in the area of Construction) were all recognized in this year's edition of the U.S. News Best Lawyers Journal. We could not be more proud of the firm we have created, or the service we are able to provide to Colorado's construction industry and its insurers.
Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFToll Brothers is facing a construction defect lawsuit from homeowners in West Windsor, New Jersey. The homebuilding company had a lengthy battle with the town over its intention to build the community they named the Estates at Princeton Junction, now its residents are alleging defects in the construction of their homes and the common infrastructure. The community is close to Princeton University, parts of which are also in West Windsor.
Toll Brothers states that they are “working very closely with the HOA Board to investigate the claims that have been alleged in the lawsuit.” Andrea Marushack, the spokesperson for Toll Brothers would not elaborate due to the lawsuit. Among the allegations are claims that the townhomes in the development are prone to water intrusion. The complaint also claims that there were defects in the construction of sidewalks, roads, and other common features.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations
March 30, 2020 —
Michael G. Platner, Solomon B. Zoberman, & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisEvery passing day brings stark new reports of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and increasing numbers of cancelled conventions, concerts, and other major events. Both the hospitality and travel industry on the one hand, and organizations that are canceling events on the other, are scrambling to understand the legal consequences of these costly terminations. Cancellation fees can be breathtaking, and affected parties are quickly learning that there are no simple answers as to whether a disease outbreak of this scope and scale falls within force majeure (or Act of God) clauses that either do not explicitly list, or arguably may never have contemplated, circumstances of this type.
Generally, force majeure clauses excuse parties’ performance under a contract when circumstances that are beyond their control arise and prevent them from fulfilling their obligations. The party electing to enforce its rights under the force majeure clause must show that the triggering event qualifies as a force majeure event, and that the event has rendered the party’s performance impossible or impracticable.
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys
Michael G. Platner,
Solomon B. Zoberman and
Jane C. Luxton
Mr. Platner may be contacted at Michael.Platner@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Zoberman may be contacted at Solomon.Zoberman@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ASCE Statement on The Partial Building Collapse in Surfside, Florida
June 28, 2021 —
Tom Smith - American Society of Civil EngineersThe following is a statement by Tom Smith, Executive Director, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):
WASHINGTON, DC. – We are saddened by the tragic news coming out of Surfside, Florida, regarding the fatal partial building collapse of a condominium early Thursday morning. Safety is the top priority of every civil engineer, and protecting public health and safety is core to our mission at ASCE. We share our deepest condolences to all of those affected by this tragedy.
Collapses like these are fortunately highly unusual and extremely rare. However, it is imperative to identify the root cause of failures when they do occur, and to ensure that proactive steps are taken to prevent future incidents. ASCE fully supports the need for continued engineering assessments to pinpoint the cause of the collapse, and we stand ready to support official investigations with technical expertise and advice available through our 150,000 civil engineer members worldwide.
While rescue and recovery operations are underway, it is important that we support our first responders who are conducting essential rescue efforts and are operating as quickly as possible. We will also continue to keep those who have been injured and those who have not yet been accounted for in our hearts and thoughts, and we share our heartfelt sympathies to all of those affected.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims
January 22, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIssues of fact surrounding the applicability of various exclusions prevented the insurer from securing summary judgment on claims for water damage. Babai v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175336 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 13, 2013).
The insured noticed water damage to various areas of her home during remodeling. Allstate denied the claim because the loss was "not sudden and accidental," but rather progressive. Allstate cited the policy provision for "wear and tear, aging, . . . deterioration," etc., to exclude coverage.
Plaintiff filed suit and Allstate moved for summary judgment. First, Allstate argued that construction defects were excluded from coverage based upon the exclusion for "latent defects." "Latent defects" were those that would not be discovered by a reasonable person. There was no evidence that the water damage was readily discoverable, so Allstate's argument failed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations
August 24, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews KurthOn August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy.
At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
