SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects
October 01, 2013 —
CDJ STAFF“We anticipate an increase in residential construction defect litigation in response to this ruling,” David Frenznic, a construction defect lawyer at Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney LLP told the Central Valley Business Times. Mr. Frenznic was responding to an August ruling by the California Court of Appeals that found that SB800 does not create the only remedy for homeowners with construction defects.
“Homeowners who suffer actual damage as a result of construction defects have a choice of remedies,” said Mr. Frenznick. SB800 established a shorter statute of limitations for construction defect claims, however, “the ruling makes clear that common law claims are still governed by the longer statues of limitations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center
April 10, 2019 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordAttendees of a recent presentation on the earthquake-resistant structure of San Francisco’s Salesforce Transit Center—intended to provide a safe haven when the Big One hits—lauded the engineering of the 4.5-block-long hollow tube that supports the 1.2-million-sq-ft “groundscraper.” But there also was much talk of the project’s black eye, as a consequence of brittle fractures of the bottom flanges of two bridge-like built-up plate girders that span 87 ft over Fremont Street.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, ENRMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.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
Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January
March 19, 2014 —
Jeanna Smialek – BloombergHousing starts in the U.S. were little changed in February after declining less than previously estimated a month earlier, indicating the home-building industry is stabilizing after bad winter weather curbed construction.
The 0.2 percent decrease to 907,000 homes at an annualized rate last month followed a revised 909,000 pace in January, figures from the Commerce Department in Washington showed today. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey called for a 910,000 rate after a previously reported 880,000 in January.
Warmer temperatures, a pickup in demand during the spring selling season and limited housing supply may help fuel further gains in new residential construction. The outlook for the industry later this year depends on whether hiring picks up enough to overcome higher mortgage rates and home prices.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeanna Smialek, BloombergMs. Smialek may be contacted at
jsmialek1@bloomberg.net
Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract
April 02, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFCraig Martin on his blog Construction Contractor Advisor explained the importance of knowing when to provide notice under your construction contract: “Time and time again, courts rule that contractors must follow notice requirements in order to submit a claim for additional time or compensation.”
Martin cited the case JEM Contracting v. Morrison-Maierle, where the contractor provided verbal notice of a claim to the engineer, but failed to submit in writing until eighteen days later, which was past the notice requirement as stated in the contract. The judge denied the contractor’s claim and sided with the engineer and county.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn recent years, more courts have started to view construction defects as accidents, covered under insurance policies. In a post on the Parr Brown Gee & Loveless web site, Jeffrey D. Stevens writes that “the number of courts siding with insurance companies to deny contractors and subcontractors insurance coverage in construction defect lawsuits has been shrinking.” Recently, the Supreme Court of West Virginia “switched sides on this issue completely.”
The Utah Supreme Court has not made a ruling on this, but the Federal District Court for the District of Utah and the Tenth Circuit have looked at Utah law and concluded that “under Utah law damage caused by construction defects is not accidental.” But in another case, “the district court determined that property damage allegedly caused by defective or defectively installed windows was caused by an accident.”
Mr. Stevens thinks that “it is likely” that the Utah Supreme Court “will follow the increasing number of courts that have held that damage caused by construction defects is an accident for insurance purposes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defects through the Years
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFBuilder has an article on the some building changes over the years that have led to construction defect problems. Is insulation evil? Well, that what some thought in the 1930s. Early attempts at insulating walls trapped moisture causing paint to peel. Then in the 1960s, the rise of aluminum wire lead to an even more serious problem: house fires.
And it continues. The plastic piping that was though to last forever when it was installed in the late 70s turned out to have about a decade of life. It’s a short forever. Eventually, polybutylene plumbing was forbidden by building codes.
The article has a series of building innovations that seemed like great ideas at the time, but were later found to be problematic.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan
June 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe AFL-CIO has announced plans to generate up to $10 billion in funding for infrastructure development, training construction workers, and making buildings more energy efficient, pledging $20 million to retrofit buildings. Bloomberg News reports that union officials made the announcement in Chicago at the Clinton Global Initiative, releasing a statement from Richard Trumka, president of the union, “we, at the AFL-CIO, believe that together, with our partners in business and government, we can profitably invest significant resources to make America more competitive and energy efficient.” A foot injury prevented Mr. Trumka from attending the event.
The statement also quoted Mark Ayers, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, “the time is now to become intensely focused on the creation of jobs.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
