Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits
August 10, 2020 —
Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri & Katelyn Werner - Gordon & ReesDespite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met.
The Bill:
On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:
- The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
- The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
- The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
- The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
- The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:
- Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
- Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys
Christine Kroupa,
John Palmeri and
Katelyn Werner
Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com
Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com
Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects
August 20, 2019 —
Brian Hearst - Construction ExecutiveThis is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss.
Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship
Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship.
If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work.
For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Hearst may be contacted at
Brian.Hearst@lockton.com
Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?
August 30, 2021 —
Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective. In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects. The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment, thereby enforcing the disclaimers. The buyer appealed.
The Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – as a matter of public policy – the implied warranties of workmanship and habitability were waivable. The Court of Appeals started the analysis by noting that the Arizona Supreme Court had, in a 1979 case, judicially eliminated the caveat emptor rule for newly built homes. The court further noted the long history of cases detailing the public policy favoring the implied warranties. But the court also noted the competing public policy of allowing parties to freely contract; explaining that the usual and most important function of the courts is to maintain and enforce contracts rather than allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations on the pretext of public policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. Parker, Snell & WilmerMr. Parker may be contacted at
kparker@swlaw.com
Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only
April 05, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's determination that there was no coverage under the builder's risk policy. Gerald H. Phipps, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2764 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017).
GH Phipps Construction Company (GHP) was hired to renovate and expand the University of Denver's library. GHP was completing installation of a new roof on the library when water from melting snow leaked into the building. The water damaged existing drywall and insulation in the stairwells and elevator shafts that GHP planned to preserve and update. Before the snow melt mishap, GHP had completed some preliminary work in the damaged areas to designate locations for future installation of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems. But GHP had not yet installed any new materials, updated any lighting fixtures, or patched and painted any existing drywall in the damaged areas.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .
May 25, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs a reader of Construction Law Musings, you no doubt realize that I am a big proponent of “green” or sustainable building. I have also been known to sound a bit like Eeyore when discussing the charge into the breach of green building without considering the potential risks. Thankfully, and despite some of the risk predictions made here (and elsewhere for that matter) there have not been but so many major court cases relating to these risks.
However, as a recent article in ENR Magazine warns, this lack of litigation does not mean that you should let your guard down. Just because the economy, warnings by attorneys and others, and possible lack of financial incentive to sue have kept the litigation numbers down does not mean that the risks have gone away. LEED requirements, time horizons and other risks that have become evident during the process of vetting green building contracts and practices still must be dealt with in contracts and insurance policies. These risks are well laid out in the ENR article and in other places here at Musings so I won’t outline them in detail here.
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
New York’s Highest Court Weighs in on N.Y. Labor Law
September 23, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneN.Y. Labor Law § 241(6) requires owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed at or lawfully frequenting a construction site. If a worker is injured on a construction site and establishes a violation of a specific and applicable Industrial Code regulation, both the owner and contractor will be held vicariously liable for the worker’s injury, without regard to their fault and even in the absence of control or supervision of the worksite. The Court of Appeals of New York recently addressed the broad scope of the Labor Law in the context of slipping hazards.
In Bazdaric v. Almah Partners, LLC, 41 N.Y.3d 310 (2024), the plaintiff, an injured painter, slipped and fell on a plastic covering placed over an escalator in an area he was assigned to paint. The plaintiff claimed that the plastic covering was a foreign substance for purposes of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) because it was not part of the escalator. Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) states:
Slipping hazards. Employers shall not suffer or permit any employee to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition. Ice, snow, water, grease and any other foreign substance which may cause slippery footing shall be removed, sanded or covered to provide safe footing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings
January 14, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFTimothy J. Abeska, a vice-chair of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Construction Law Practice Group, analyzed Goodrich Quality Theaters, Inc. v. Fostcorp Heating and Cooling, Inc., 16 N.E.3d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), which “provides an example of a court enforcing contract provisions rather than markings on construction drawings that are inconsistent with contract requirements.”
The case evolved from a dispute on a construction of an IMAX theater, when the general contractor did not understand the architect’s markings for non-standard joist girders, and ordered standard joist girders, per the contract. The error created delays and other problems, which led to payment disputes and mechanic’s liens against the project.
Abeska stated that “[t]his case shows the importance of making sure all documents which comprise a construction contract are consistent with each other, as courts will enforce contracts negotiated by the parties. The case also demonstrates that litigation is not a quick process, as the Court of Appeals Opinion was issued more than seven years after the project was completed.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside
September 21, 2020 —
Jeff Clare - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside.
With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability.
One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Clare, PillsburyMr. Clare may be contacted at
jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com
