An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy
June 12, 2014 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerThe Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below.
Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions).
Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
Kacey R. Riccomini
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that construction defects could count as “occurrences” under a general liability policy. John Watkins, writing in Law360, notes that the ruling “has potentially broad implications for Georgia insureds.” He goes on to look at a later Georgia Supreme Court case, in which the court reaffirmed its decision in the 2011 Hathaway case.
In the 2013 case, Taylor Morrison Services Inc. v. HDI-Gerlins Ins., the court held that the property damage had to happen to something other than the work performed by the insured, and that a breaches of warranty without fraud claims may be covered. But Watkins notes that this points to “the continuing efforts of insurers to deny coverage for construction defects under CGL policies.”
This overruled some of the past decisions of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Watkins noted that the Eleventh Circuit seemed to wonder about the scope of Hathaway, but with Taylor Morrison, “the Georgia Supreme Court provided a clearly stated response.”
Looking at the implications, he gives an example in which if a window installer work causes a window to leak and the water intrusion damages a floor, the floor, but not the window would be covered. But he cautions, “the result may turn on the policy language and the particular facts.” In any case, he assures us that “coverage disputes regarding construction defects are sure to continue.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context
March 06, 2022 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and WilliamsA business court in Massachusetts has weighed in on two key issues affecting allocation of insurance coverage for long-tail liabilities in Massachusetts. Specifically, in Crosby Valve LLC et al. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al.,
[1] involving asbestos bodily injury claims, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session addressed:
- whether defense costs in long-tail cases were subject to the same pro rata allocation scheme the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) adopted to govern successively triggered insurers' indemnity obligations in Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company;[2] and
- whether “non-cumulation” provisions, like those addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Viking Pump,[3] were consistent with this pro rata allocation methodology.
As to the first issue — i.e., allocation of defense costs — Judge Salinger declined to follow Boston Gas, and found the SJC’s holding in that case was limited to an insurers’ indemnity obligations. The SJC in Boston Gas had focused on the language of the policy insuring agreement, saying “[t]his policy applies to ... property damage ... which occurs anywhere during the policy period.” The SJC had also pointed to the policy definition of “occurrence” as “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”
[4]
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and
Austin D. Moody, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.
In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”
Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.
The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”
The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”
The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft
September 17, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAspen Journalism reported that “[f]our laborers who worked on the Burlingame Phase II affordable housing project financed by the city of Aspen are suing three of the project’s contractors, alleging they weren’t paid for some of their work and were never paid overtime when they worked more than 40 hours per week.”
Towards Justice, nonprofit legal services group, filed suit in August on behalf of Fernando Villalobos, Sergio Roman, Ramon Gonzalez and Hugo Esqueda, and against construction companies Haselden Construction, LLC of Centennial, Continental Constructors, LLC of Littleton, and JMS Building of Glenwood Springs.
Both sides have agreed that “the men were paid for some, but not all, of their work,” but dispute “the value of the work done by the laborers.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWith the diverse speakers and topics planned for this year’s West Coast Casualty Seminar in Anaheim, California on May 15th and 16th, attendance should be high. In 2013, there were approximately 1600 attendees coming from across the country as well as the United Kingdom. The event planners recently added additional blocks of rooms, as the Disneyland Hotel has sold out 90% of the previously allotted room blocks. The planners urge attendees to book their rooms soon.
Seminar and panel topics have been announced. Thomas J. Halliwell, Esq. and Barry Vaughan, Esq. will be starting the seminar off with a discussion of “Recent California, Arizona and Nevada Court Decisions that Impact Construction Litigation and Defect Claims.” May 16th will feature a number of interesting break-out sessions including “Working Smarter with Technology” with speakers Brian Kahn, Esq., Paul R. Kiesel, Esq., Hon. Peter Lichtman (ret), Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock (ret), Peter S. Curry and Don MacGregor (Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.).
Download Invitation and Register for Seminar... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Point Taken: The UK Supreme Court Finally Confirms the General Law of Liquidated Damages (LDs)
April 04, 2022 —
Vincent C. Zabielski & Julia Kalinina Belcher - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a long-awaited decision which overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Triple Point Technology vs PTT Public Company case, the UK Supreme Court confirmed the general law of LDs, which is that—absent clear words to the contrary—they accrue up to the date of termination of a contract regardless of whether the contractor completes the work; after that, general damages are recoverable. This approach was held to reflect “commercial reality and the accepted function of liquidated damages.” Although the contract in question was not a construction contract, the decision is equally relevant in the construction sphere.
By way of reminder, Triple Point failed to complete the works under Phase 1 of a contract for the design, installation, maintenance and licencing of software. Despite agreeing a revised project plan, PTT gave notice to terminate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and
Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury
Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThis summer, Sahara Sam’s Oasis, located in West Berlin, New Jersey, will open Diggerland Adventure Park, a new 14-acre construction equipment themed amusement park, according to Equipment World. The United Kingdom currently has Diggerlands in four locations: “There, the parks use primarily JCB backhoes, excavators, and skid steers in a variety of ways.” Machines are used as rides, including “Spindizzy, in which an excavator takes a bucket full of people on a 360 degree spin.” Diggerland is currently owned by Allsafety Ltd.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
