Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit
July 30, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are a contractor in DIRECT CONTRACT with an owner, serve a contractor final payment affidavit on the owner, as a matter of course, and without any undue delay, particularly if you are owed money and have recorded a construction lien. In numerous circumstances, I like to serve the contractor final payment affidavit with the construction lien.
The contractor final payment affidavit is not a meaningless form. It is a statutory form (set forth in Florida Statute s. 713.06) required to be filled out by a lienor in direct privity of contract with an owner and served on the owner at least 5 days prior to the lienor foreclosing its construction lien. The contractor final payment affidavit serves as a condition precedent to foreclosing a construction lien. Failure to timely serve a contractor final payment affidavit should result in a dismissal of the lien foreclosure lawsuit, presumably by the owner moving for a motion for summary judgment. This should not occur.
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
"Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"
January 04, 2018 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOriginally Published by CDJ on March 16, 2017
I have been asked this question quite a bit from owners, in particular: “The contractor committed defective work, but it has insurance. Doesn’t the insurance cover this defective work?” Ugh, NO! There is this misconception that liability insurance, specifically, is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to defective work. This could not be further from the truth. Don’t get me wrong – liability insurance is important; it is very, very important. However, liability insurance does not cover the risk of an insured’s defective work. Rather, liability insurance is designed to cover the risk of resulting damage: damage resulting from defective work. This is a significant distinction and one that is often overlooked. This is also why anyone encountering defective work should be working with an attorney to maximize insurance coverage or realize that the issue is not covered by insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Duty to Defend Triggered by Damage to Other Non-Defective Property
February 20, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found the insurer must defend because there was a possibility of damage to property due to work not performed by the insured. B&W Paving & Landscape, LLC v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225783 (D. Conn. Dec. 15, 2022).
In 2010, Whiting Turner Contracting Company (WT) contracted with United Illuminating Company (UI) to act as general contractor for the construction of UI's new central facility. WT subcontracted with Cherry Hill Construction, Inc. (Cherry Hill) for work underneath the parking lot and driveways, including installing base and sub base materials. WT also subcontracted with B&W Paving and Landscape, LLC (B&W) for the asphalt paving.
In 2018, UI sued WT for defective and incomplete work. WT then filed a third-party compact against its subcontractors, including B&W. WT sued for contribution for any liability it may have to UI for the paving work.
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
Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has filed a motion to dismiss its breach of contract lawsuit over the windows McCarthy Building installed in the bank’s building. The bank alleged that the 498 windows were defective and needed to be replaced at a cost of about $1.5 million.
But on September 11, the bank acted to dismiss the suit following a settlement with the defendants. The terms of the settlement was not disclosed. All parties will be covering their own legal costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case
September 10, 2018 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Tae Andrews - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a victory for policyholders, a recent decision from the Western District of Texas narrowly construed a common breach-of-contract exclusion and held that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying lawsuit over construction defects. The allegations potentially supported a covered claim, as the conduct of the insured’s subcontractor could have been an independent, “but for” cause of the property damage at issue, thereby triggering the insurer’s duty to defend.
In Slay, the insured – a construction company – was hired by a city to design and construct a municipal sports complex, including Little League baseball fields, a softball field, parking lots, and a swimming pool. The construction company hired a subcontractor to perform various services on the project, including paving parking lots and laying the cement for the pool. After completing the project, one of the construction company’s employees noticed cracking in the parking lot and the pool. The construction company notified the city and tried to work out a repair plan, but the city refused and eventually sued, alleging construction defects and asserting claims for breach of contract and negligence.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)
April 28, 2016 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaToday we have a guest post from Carla Williams, who works in customer service for the
Williams Brothers Corporation of America. Carla humorously brings light to a serious problem– the intent behind ADA and Universal Design is very often not met with poorly-thought out applications in the real world. Enjoy, and feel free to leave a comment for Carla below.
Universal design is the idea that architecture should be inherently accessible to everyone. The growing number of architects adopting universal design is great news for people with accessibility needs. Instead of having separate entrances and walkways to make a building accessible, universal design allows people of all abilities to move together.
Unfortunately, many buildings are stuck back in 1990 right after the Americans with Disabilities Act was made law. These buildings may be technically “accessible,” but they aren’t spaces people with accessibility needs can maneuver very easily. Until all building designers come to understand and implement the beauty and functionality of universal design, the world is left with less than ideal accessibility. “Less than ideal” is a bit of an understatement. Many times full-on “accessibility fails” take place.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend
November 15, 2021 —
Sarah J. Odia & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsOn Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as the facts were available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the claim. The court also held that an insured has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies to create a duty to defend.
In Zurich, Ironshore refused to defend to its insured against multiple property damage claims arising out of construction defects, claiming that its policies’ continuing and progressive damage exclusions barred coverage. The underlying lawsuits made no specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred. Ironshore claimed that the property damage had occurred due to faulty work that predated the commencement of its policies. Two different federal trial courts came to conflicting conclusions in the underlying cases. One held that Ironshore had a duty to defend because Ironshore failed to show that an exception to the exclusion did not apply. The second granted summary judgment in favor of Ironshore holding that the insured failed to meet its burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applied.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah J. Odia, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
