Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq.
Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project.
The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’”
The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim.
Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims.
Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges
June 22, 2016 —
Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-RecordThe project teams for Edmonton’s two problem bridge-replacement projects have put most of their woes behind them—if trips to civil court and possible late-completion penalties are excluded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted with questions or comments at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
“Genuine” Issue of “Material” Fact and Summary Judgments
December 18, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThis is short article on summary judgments. A motion for summary judgment, as you may already know, is a procedural vehicle to try to dispose of issues or claims in a lawsuit, either partially or fully. The objective is that the moving party claims that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to a judgment (partially or finally) as a matter of law. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. In May of 2021, Florida adopted the federal summary judgment standard which theoretically means trial courts should grant more summary judgments, not less, based on the more rigorous standard.
There have been many articles that discuss Florida’s new summary judgment standard including how the standard used to be versus how it is supposed to be now that it is modeled after the federal standard. That isn’t the point of this posting. (Here is an article published in the Florida Bar Journal that provides a primer on summary judgments in case you are interested.)
The point of this posting is to understand the words “genuine” and “material” as underlined above when moving for or defending against a summary judgment. These words have important meaning in the context of motions for summary judgment. In other words, what is a genuine issue of material fact? This is a question that should not be overlooked because these are the facts you want to focus on and frame your arguments on when moving for or defending against a summary judgment. Notably, these are also the facts you want to introduce and emphasize at trial.
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
Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials
May 18, 2020 —
Brian S. Wood & Miranda R. Millerick - ConsensusDocsIt is very common, if not nearly an industry standard, for construction contracts and subcontracts to contain provisions addressing the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials. Many of these provisions require a contractor or subcontractor to discontinue work where hazardous materials are discovered. An example of such a clause can be found in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A201 (2017), Section 10.3.1, which states in part:
If the Contractor encounters a hazardous material or substance not addressed in the Contract Documents and if reasonable precautions will be inadequate to prevent foreseeable bodily injury or death to persons resulting from a material or substance, including but not limited to asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), encountered on the site by the Contractor, the Contractor shall, upon recognizing the condition, immediately stop Work in the affected area and notify the Owner and Architect of the condition.
A similar clause in ConsensusDocs does not require the contractor to stop work, but provides that the “Contractor shall not be obligated to commence or continue work until any Hazardous Material discovered at the Work site has been removed, rendered or determined to be harmless by the Owner as certified by an independent testing laboratory and approved by the appropriate government agency.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP and
Miranda R. Millerick, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP
Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com
Ms. Millerick may be contacted at mrmillerick@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Selected to 2017 OCBJ’s Best Places to Work List
July 26, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is proud to be one of the selected companies in the
Best Places to Work in Orange County – 2017 Survey in the category of medium sized companies. This marks the sixth consecutive year Newmeyer & Dillion LLP has made the list, affirming that its profound commitment to professionalism and client service is shared among its workforce. The firm was honored in the July 24 issue of the Orange County Business Journal.
Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion's Managing Partner, commends the effort and commitment of each employee in achieving this result. "We strive to make Newmeyer & Dillion a great place to be, but we only set the goal. It is our employees and their ongoing loyalty and commitment to our mission that makes it happen. Together, we create a culture here that cannot be matched anywhere else."
Created in 2009, the awards program evaluates entries based on workplace policies, practices, demographics, and also collects employee surveys to measure overall satisfaction and experience. The Best Companies Group worked alongside the Orange County Business Journal in collecting and analyzing the data and is a partner in the project.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court
June 21, 2021 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.”
5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!
May 20, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the third straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2019. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer elected lists.
So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2019.
The full lists of Virginia Super Lawyers will appear in the May edition of Richmond Magazine. Please check it out.
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
North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims
January 04, 2023 —
White and Williams LLPOn December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part.
I. Background
In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
