Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In
August 10, 2021 —
Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLPFew courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that
here.
Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and
Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be a Good Neighbor: Techniques to Mitigate the Risk of Claims from Adjacent Landowners
December 07, 2020 —
Joshua Levy, Josh Neudorfer & Madeleine Bailey - Construction ExecutiveIn May 2020, a real estate developer performing excavation work in New York was sued by a neighboring property owner for property damage. A court overturned an injunction preventing the developer from continuing excavation work after reviewing a preconstruction assessment that showed the damage to the neighboring property was preexisting—not caused by the excavation (see Feldman v. 3588 Nostrand Ave. LLC as an example)
A preconstruction assessment is one of the most important tools in the arsenal of a developer protecting itself from neighbors bringing claims for property damage. Part two of this series will review the benefits of risk mitigation tools recommended for developers such as postconstruction assessments and monitoring during construction.
Preconstruction Assessment Overview
A preconstruction assessment is a review of a property adjacent to a site where demolition and/or construction activities are to take place. The goal of the assessment is to establish baseline conditions by conducting an inspection of buildings and infrastructure, including identification of existing damage to improvements, so that causation of any alleged damages can be more easily determined.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Levy, Josh Neudorfer & Madeleine Bailey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Levy may be contacted at joshua.levy@huschblackwell.com
Mr. Neudorfer may be contacted at jneudorfer@thesigmagroup.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions
May 31, 2021 —
Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita1. Understanding the “Products-Completed Operations Hazard”
ISO commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies use the term “products-completed operations hazard” (“PCOH”) to define a category of risk which is treated specially by certain exclusions within the policy and often subject to separate limits of insurance. In construction, we think about PCOH as being about coverage for completed work.
Bodily injury and property damage arising out of completed work is a significant construction risk. Most construction contracts include warranty and indemnity obligations for completed work. All states allow lawsuits to be brought alleging bodily injury or property damage because of completed work based on common law. Contract and common law claims are subject to statutes of limitation – laws which define the time in which suits must be brought. Most states provide exceptions to their statutes of limitation for common law claims – the most common example is an extension to file a lawsuit based on a latent defect until the defect is discovered. Most states also have “statutes of repose” – laws that set a date after which suit may no longer be brought, no matter what the circumstances are. A construction contractor, therefore, has potential liability until the statute of repose period has expired. Thus, a contractor looks to ensure that it has coverage for the PCOH for its full statute of repose liability period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Welch may be contacted at
JWelch@sdvlaw.com
Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens
February 18, 2020 —
Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter - Construction ExecutiveThere may be tension between the enforcement of statutory mechanic’s lien claims when a contractual dispute resolution provision calls for arbitration. Once the parties are in arbitration, it may not be clear whether the arbitrator has authority to make factual determinations regarding amount and validity of mechanic’s liens, and whether courts are bound by these determinations. This uncertainty stems from the fact that in most states a mechanic’s lien can only be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, many mechanic’s liens statutes define foreclosure as a “judicial process,” and courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to issue orders foreclosing on real property1.
The risk for contractors and owners is that they will spend time and money re-litigating factual issues related to proving elements of a mechanic’s lien claim, including the proper lien amount, timeliness and other prerequisites. Without a clear understanding of what issues and elements are arbitrable, the parties run the risk that an arbitrator will rule on certain elements only to find out during post-arbitration lien foreclosure proceedings that the arbitrator lacked authority to make determinations on those elements. Questions therefore arise whether a court will enforce the arbitrator’s determinations and whether the parties must relitigate mechanic’s lien issues creating a further risk of inconsistent rulings.
These risks can be minimized through arbitration provisions which address these issues, express requests in arbitration demands and by ensuring that arbitration awards contain explicit determinations of mechanic’s liens issues.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Potter may be contacted at tpotter@coxcastle.com
Mr. Campbell may be contacted at rcampbell@coxcastle.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures
August 20, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn July 23, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case of Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition v. EPA. Environmental conservation groups and industry associations petitioned for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities. Denying the petitions for review, the Court of Appeals summarized:
“Because we conclude, among other things, that both the Rule and the biological opinion are based on reasonable interpretations of the applicable statutes and sufficiently supported by the factual record, and because the EPA 3 gave adequate notice of its rulemaking, we DENY the petitions for review.”
This is a significant CWA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision involving the operation of major industrial facilities requiring the daily use of large amounts of water taken from adjacent bodies of water.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law
March 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez - CDJ STAFFAccording to the Denver Business Journal, Dennis Houston, president and CEO of the Parker Chamber of Commerce in Colorado, spoke at the state’s capitol recently, calling legislators “to make it harder for attorneys to file class-action lawsuits against condominium builders so that areas like his can attract a workforce of millennials.” Houston and other Chamber of Commerce leaders gathered at the capitol “to lobby for sensible energy policies and construction defects reform, among other things.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA construction defect case involving an animal shelter in Healdsburg, California has settled after two years of litigation, according to The Press Democrat. The $3.5 million, 7,500-square foot building had been “built largely with a behest from the estate of the late vintner Rodney Strong and his wife, Charlotte.” However, “shortly before the facility could be completed in late 2011, general contractor Syd Kelly went bankrupt. Unpaid sub-contractors filed liens for payment against the Healdsburg Animal Shelter, which in turn alleged construction and design defects in the building.”
The Press Democrat reported that “[t]he most visible signs of problems were cracks in the cement foundation.” Robert Wilkie, the Healdsburg Animal Shelter board’s secretary-treasurer, stated that the shelter is “perfectly structurally viable and a rather attractive building” and that “the defects that make it not usable today can be mitigated in a variety of different ways.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA
July 31, 2013 —
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage.
On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project.
MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady IandiorioBrady Iandiorio can be contacted at
Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
