Los Angeles Wildfires Will Cause Significant Insured Losses, Ranking Amongst the Most Destructive in California's History
January 14, 2025 —
Morningstar DBRSWildfires currently burning in the Pacific Palisades, Eaton, Hurst and other Los Angeles neighborhoods will cause significant losses for the insurance industry, in
Morningstar DBRS’ view. The fires have already burned more than 1,100 homes and threaten more than 28,000 additional structures, according to local fire officials. Preliminary estimates point to total insured losses in excess of $8 billion depending on the final number of properties being affected by the wildfires. By way of comparison, the 2018 Woolsey Fire, which destroyed 1,643 structures just north of Los Angeles, caused more than $6 billion in property damages at that time. Morningstar DBRS expects the ongoing wildfires to have a negative but manageable impact on major property insurers active in the Californian market, with the impact somewhat mitigated by their use of reinsurance and their high degree of diversification. Similarly, losses should be manageable for the global reinsurance industry and not affect their credit profiles.
While leading U.S. property insurers are in good financial condition, the California property insurance market has been challenging because of high wildfire and other natural catastrophe risks combined with regulatory restrictions on coverage and pricing, leading many insurers to re-think their product offering, including an outright exit from the market. For example, market leaders such as State Farm and Allstate started reducing their exposure to the California market beginning 2022-2023. It is therefore possible that a larger than usual portion of the losses caused by the wildfires will be uninsured or may be covered under the California FAIR Plan, which is designed to provide fire coverage up to $3 million per home and spread the risk across the industry when it is not available from traditional carriers.
This event reinforces the need for adequate rate increases on home insurance in California, based on forward-looking pricing and catastrophe modelling, as well as for additional fire prevention and mitigation initiatives. However, property insurance affordability is likely to remain a challenge in the state going forward, with many property owners opting to remain uninsured or under-insured because of the high costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2022 Project of the Year: Linking Los Angeles
May 01, 2023 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordThe 2023 Oscar awards featured a Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor who reinvented themselves and came back for a second act. The tunnel-boring machine Angeli is the LA performer who did much the same, but entirely underground.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols
August 19, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) – which I won’t spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations – addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite.
The Huerta Case
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:
- Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
- Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
- Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?
September 29, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIf there is one mantra that is repeated often here at Construction Law Musings, it is that your construction contract will be strictly construed and Virginia Courts will enforce the provisions as written. This rule includes forum selection clauses. For those that aren’t attorneys, this means that absent a statute to the contrary, the parties can pick the location of any litigation or arbitration by contract. However, the timing of signing that contract makes a difference as a relatively recent Eastern District of Virginia case points out.
Marathon Res. Mgmt Grp v. C. Cornell, Inc. examined what happens when work is performed by one party to the contract prior to the execution of the written contract that contains the forum selection provision. In this case, the defendant C. Cornell, Inc. obtained a default judgment in Texas for non-payment by Marathon for painting and cleaning of rooms at Texas A & M University for work invoiced on August 22, 2017, and September 11, 2017. Upon receipt of the garnishment from the Texas Court, Marathon sued C. Cornell in Virginia state court and the defendant removed the case to federal court. Marathon alleged two separate breaches of contract, the first was that C. Cornell violated the forum selection clause of a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) executed on September 23, 2017. The second was a violation of another clause of the MSA that barred direct communication with any of Marathon’s customers. The second breach was alleged to be by virtue of the garnishment summons to one of Marathon’s customers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck
May 28, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's claim for collapse of his roof and deck failed due to defective design and other exclusions under the policy. Dudar v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52706 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2024).
The insured submitted a claim to State Farm for damage to the roof ("Roof Claim"). State Farm's adjuster placed a ladder on the deck to access the roof and a portion of the deck collapsed. The insured then reported a claim to State Farm for damage to the deck ("Deck Claim"). The claims were denied and suit was filed.
The roof had leaked on several occasions prior to submission of the Roof Claim. On February 25, 2022, the insured discovered that a branch had cut a hole in the tarp, causing water to leak into the home. The insured performed repairs on the roof. On March 8, 2022, a storm caused more water to seep through the tarp into the ceilings and walls. Thereafter, the Roof Claim was submitted.
The damage from the leaking roof and the deck collapse were caused by rotting. The rotting, in turn, was caused by a combination of defective building design and resulting water damage from rain and storms over the years. The roof and deck were constructed to provide mutual support to one another. The roof did not contain an adequate slope, which caused water to seep down into the walls and flooring rather than to flow downward and away from the property. Over time, penetrating water caused portions of the roof, the floor, and the supporting wall between the roof and deck to rot.
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
Antidiscrimination Clause Required in Public Works and Goods and Services Contracts –Effective January 1, 2024
January 22, 2024 —
Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn July 2023, the Washington legislature passed Senate Bill 5186, which mandates inclusion of select antidiscrimination clauses in every state contract and subcontract for public works, goods, or services executed after January 1, 2024.
[i] RCW 49.60.530(3) codifies the now-required antidiscrimination clauses, which prohibit four categories of discrimination against any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability (the “Protected Class”).
Under the new law, public contractors and subcontractors (“Public Contractor”) may not refuse to hire a person because that person is a member of the Protected Class, unless that refusal is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or if a person with a particular disability would be prevented from properly performing the particular work involved.
[ii] Similarly, Public Contractors may not discharge or bar a person from employment or discriminate against any person – either in terms of compensation or other terms and conditions of employment – because that person is a member of the Protected Class.
[iii] Last, Public Contractors may not print or circulate (or cause to be printed or circulated) any statement, advertisement, publication, form of application for employment, or make inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to the Protected Class.
[iv] Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Colburn may be contacted at
travis.colburn@acslawyers.com
Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion
October 04, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Laura Rossi - White and WilliamsOn September 7, 2021, in one of the few decisions addressing the scope of coverage for faulty workmanship under Delaware law, the Delaware District Court denied an insurer’s motion seeking a declaration that it neither needed to defend nor indemnify an insured-builder under a commercial general liability policy.
In this declaratory judgment action, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Zonko Builders, the insurer argued that the ongoing underlying action failed to properly plead an “occurrence” in a case alleging damages to a condominium caused by faulty workmanship involving subcontractors.* Zonko Builders (Zonko) served as the general contractor, supervising subcontractors. The Condominium Association sued Zonko for damages allegedly resulting from design and construction deficiencies. The motion was opposed by the Condominium Association, which cross-moved for partial judgment on the pleadings.
In AE-Newark Associates, L.P. v. CNA Insurance Companies, 2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 370 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2001), the Delaware Superior Court found that an insured was entitled to coverage for damages arising from a faulty roof system installed by a subcontractor on behalf of the insured general contractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Laura Rossi, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sinking Floor Does Not Meet Strict Definition of Collapse
August 17, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the sinking of the insured's floor caused by termites and rot deterioration did not meet the homeowners policy's definition of collapse. Stewart v. Metro. Lloyds Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111527 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2020).
Beatrice Stewart, the homeowner, heard a loud bang one night as she lay in bed. The next day, she found that the floor near her bathroom and hallway had sunk and the house was sitting lower. She admitted the house never completely fell down. Upon investigation, Lloyds found that rot in the floor joists and subfloor decking were caused by a combination of termite damage and exposure to moisture. Lloyds denied the claim.
Stewart sued. Lloyds argued the policy required an "entire collapse" of the building or any part of a building, which did not occur here. The policy defined "collapse" as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building." The record did not show that any part of Stewart's floor caved in.
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
