Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion
May 20, 2019 —
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an incident at Xytex Tissue Services, LLC’s warehouse, where Xytex stored biological material at low temperatures. Xytex used an on-site “liquid nitrogen delivery system” to keep the material properly cooled. This system releases liquid nitrogen, which would vaporize into nitrogen gas and cool the biological material. On February 5, 2017, a Xytex employee, Deputy Greg Meagher, entered the warehouse to investigate activated motion detectors and burglar alarms. Deputy Meagher was overcome by nitrogen gas and died as a result. Following Deputy Meagher’s death, his heirs filed suit against Xytex and other defendants. Evanston denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion in its policy. Evanston then brought a declaratory judgment action to confirm its coverage position.
In denying Evanston’s summary judgment motion, the Southern District of Georgia reasoned that the type of injury sustained is essential in analyzing whether the pollution exclusion applies. Specifically, Xytex argued, and the court agreed, that the underlying lawsuit alleged that the bodily injury was caused by a lack of oxygen, not exposure to nitrogen. The court also distinguished prior decisions, explaining that injury caused by a lack of oxygen is not a contamination or irritation of the body in the same way as injury resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide or lead. The court also found that Xytex “reasonably expected that liability related to a nitrogen leak would be insured.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Lawrence J. Bracken II,
Michael S. Levine and
Alexander D. Russo
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
$48 Million Award and Successful Defense of $135 Million Claim
June 04, 2024 —
Peckar & AbramsonPeckar & Abramson is proud to have represented one of the nation’s largest general contractors in the achievement of a $48 million award in its favor and the denial of a $135 million claim against it in Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida on May 3, 2024 arising out of the FDOT’s $2.3 billion reconstruction of I-4, a P3 project and the Department’s largest project ever in the State of Florida.
After a 2-week bench trial, P&A secured the favorable decision which found that the general contractor client was entitled to recover $48 million on its affirmative claim against the party who initiated the lawsuit and that it did not breach its fiduciary duties and was not grossly negligent as was claimed which resulted in a denial of the initiating party’s $135 million claim in its entirety.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peckar & Abramson
No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend
February 08, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Montana Supreme Court held that because there was no duty to defend the insureds' intentional acts, the insurer had no duty to defend. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Wessel, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2617 (Mont. Dec. 22, 2020).
The insureds' property was accessed by Turk Road. Turk Road was also used by the neighbors to access their land. The insureds asked for permission to snowmobile across the neighbors' property. Permission was denied because the property was in a conservation easement which prohibited motorised used. The insureds' thereafter retaliated by not allowing the neighbors to use Turk Road. The neighbors then purchased an easement from another landowners to construct a new driveway which did not traverse the insureds' property. The insureds built snow berms and gates, felled trees, and created other obstacles to prevent the neighbors from using the new driveway. Physical threats were also made by the insureds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Wave Breaker: How a Living Shoreline Will Protect a Florida Highway and Oyster Bed
December 23, 2024 —
Derek Lacey - Engineering News-RecordA living shoreline being constructed in the Florida Panhandle's Apalachicola Bay is protecting a critical local highway, while fostering marsh areas and oyster habitat that’s seen years of decline.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lacey, Engineering News-RecordMr. Lacey may be contacted at
laceyd@enr.com
Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion
December 29, 2020 —
Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-RecordThe 39-story main tower of the former Trump Plaza hotel-casino on the Atlantic City, N.J., boardwalk, sold to investor Carl Icahn in 2016, will be imploded in February by a Philadelphia general contractor already in the process of dismantling the former showplace of President Donald Trump's real estate holdings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.
August 20, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract.
This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions.
In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Virtual Reality for Construction
July 14, 2016 —
Aarni Heiskanen – AEC BusinessParadoxically, Virtual Reality (VR) technologies are still lagging behind the visions that people have for their use. However, VR has already demonstrated its capacity to change the ways we design, make decisions about, and produce built environments.
Is VR finally feasible?
Two AEC Hackathons and meetings with certain startups have made me think that Virtual Reality (VR) might finally break through in construction. There are two reasons for my belief. Firstly, 3D and building information modeling (BIM) are widely adopted in the industry. The idea of virtual buildings and environments is nothing new and has become very natural. Secondly, there’s a growing interest in Gaming and Entertainment VR investments. This will push the technology forward and make it affordable to consumers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aarni@aepartners.fi
