California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision
April 20, 2020 —
J. Kelby Van Patten - Payne & FearsIn Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted.
Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & FearsMr. Van Patten may be contacted at
kvp@paynefears.com
CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn 2013, the case Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC received a great deal of attention for its possible ramifications to how California’s Right to Repair Act (also known as SB 800) could be applied. However, 2014 had its share of SB 800 policy trends, most notably caused by the ruling in Burch.
In their article, “Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back,” authors Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefco, of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, analyzed Burch as well as KB Home Greater Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., both cases that had ramifications on how California’s Right to Repair Act is applied.
Read the full story...
Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch discussed the Liberty Mutual and Burch cases in her article, “California’s Right to Repair Act is Not a Homeowner’s Exclusive Remedy when Construction Defects cause Actual Property Damage.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can Your Small Business Afford to Risk the Imminent Threat of a Cyber Incident?
November 28, 2018 —
Jeffrey M. Dennis & Heather H. Whitehead – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPCybersecurity incidents are occurring on a daily basis and at an increasingly growing rate. Yet, many small businesses still have not obtained adequate (or any) cyber insurance to address these risks and the costly impacts to the business that will result. In a recent study completed by the Insurance Information Institute1, only about a third of all small businesses polled responded that they have cyber insurance in place, with 70% of respondents replying that they have no plans to purchase a cyber insurance policy in the next 12 months. Most of the businesses indicated that they do not believe they have any need for cyber insurance, yet almost half of those same companies stated they are unprepared to handle cyber threats. A main reason for not purchasing cyber insurance was a lack of understanding about this type of insurance and coverages available.
The Risks for Small Businesses
These statistics are alarming considering that the average cost of a cyber-related loss for a small business has increased 250% in the past two years, and now totals $188,400. In determining whether insurance coverage should be purchased, companies typically assess the perceived risks to the company, the likelihood of such risks occurring, as well as any costs or expenses that may result. For example, most companies regularly obtain a property policy to cover a fire or other casualty that may damage its business location even though such an event is unlikely or unexpected. Yet, cyber incidents are just as likely, if not more likely to occur, and the impacts to a company in the event of an incident are far worse. Many incidents result in a complete suspension of the daily operations of the company for several days or longer.
In addition to financial loss, companies may face the following as a result of a cyber incident:
- Theft, breach or loss of information and data;
- Damage to the company's reputation, brand or image; and
- Regulatory, governance and legal issues.
- How Cyber Insurance can Help
Cyber insurance policies can be obtained to address the losses related to a data breach and may include costs for investigating a breach, notifying people affected by a breach of personally identifiable information, managing the potential damage to reputation and other crisis-management expenses, recovering lost or corrupted data, and related legal expenses. More importantly, well-drafted policies can afford coverage for business interruption losses; i.e. those expenses and lost revenue resulting from a breached system and a company's inability to continue its usual operations. Coverage may also be obtained for "cyber extortion", which covers costs resulting from an extortion event such as ransomware or fraudulent wire transfers.
It is important to keep in mind that cyber insurance is only one component to consider when developing and implementing an overall risk management strategy to prevent cyber incidents. However, taking into account the exposure to a company if and when a cyber incident occurs, it is highly advisable to have this coverage in place.
1Insurance Information Institute, "Small business, big risk: Lack of cyber insurance is a serious threat," October 2018.
Jeff Dennis is the head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Heather Whitehead is a Partner in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Heather also practices insurance coverage matters for commercial, retail, industrial, mixed-use, multi-family and residential projects. For more information on how Heather can help, contact her at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure
November 21, 2018 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordNov. 15, 2018 Update:
After calling on Nov. 8 for a “complete structural evaluation” of San Francisco's 1.2-million-sq-ft SalesForce Transit Center, following the discovery on Sept. 25 of significant, mid-span cracks in the bottom flanges of twin parallel girders spanning 80 ft over Fremont Street, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority now says the problems with girders are localized.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, ENRMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners
February 18, 2019 —
Wilke FleuryWilke Fleury celebrates the addition of two new partners – Shannon Smith-Crowley and Daniel J. Foster – who complement the firm’s shifting generations of leadership. Shannon and Danny bring unique perspective and excellent capability to Wilke Fleury’s partnership effective January 1, 2019.
Shannon has been a registered lobbyist in California for 20 years. After a career in managed care, she started lobbying with the California Medical Association before founding her own firm, Partners In Advocacy to specialize in medical and reproductive health advocacy. At Wilke Fleury, her areas of practice include health care, women’s equity, life sciences, the biomedical industry, new family formation and emerging technologies in green energy. After a four year tenure with the firm, she has been elevated to the partnership.
Click here to read more about Shannon Smith-Crowley.
Daniel Foster’s litigation practice is composed of matters involving complex construction defect litigation, mechanics liens claims, stop notice actions and Miller Act claims. He represents clients before the Contractors State License Board and handles matters involving breach of warranty, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, indemnity agreements and liability insurance coverage.
Click here to read more about Daniel J. Foster Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury
Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.
After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.
KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.
Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”
As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.
While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”
ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”
In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine
March 11, 2014 —
Scott Patterson – CD CoverageIntervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Insurance Co., * So.2d * (Fla. 2014), the issue was whether the insured general contractor could satisfy the SIR in its CGL policy with funds it received from the insurer of a subcontractor in settlement of the general contractor’s contractual indemnity claim against that subcontractor. ICI was the general contractor for a residence sold to Ferrin. Several years after completion, Ferrin suffered injuries in a fall while using attic stairs installed by ICI’s subcontractor Custom Cutting. Ferrin sued ICI but not Custom Cutting. ICI was insured by General Fidelity with a $1M SIR. ICI sought contractual indemnity from Custom Cutting. The Ferrin suit was ultimately settled for $1.6M. Custom Cutting’s CGL insurer paid $1M to ICI to resolve ICI’s contractual indemnity claim. Using the $1M paid on behalf of Custom Cutting and $300K of its own funds, ICI paid $1.3M to Ferrin. General Fidelity paid the remaining $300K with an agreement with ICI that each was entitled to seek reimbursement of $300K from the other. ICI filed suit in Florida state court. General Fidelity removed to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit certified the relevant questions to the Supreme Court of Florida.
The Florida Supreme Court first held that the General Fidelity SIR allowed ICI to satisfy the SIR through indemnification payments received from a third party. While the SIR provision stated that it must be satisfied by the insured, it did not include any language proscribing the source of the funds used by the insured to satisfy the SIR. The court distinguished other decisions where the SIR endorsement expressly stated that payments by others, including other insurers, could not satisfy the SIR. The court also relied on the fact that ICI “hedged its retained risk” by paying for its entitlement to contractual indemnification from its subcontractor years prior to purchasing the General Fidelity policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!
July 22, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt was 9 years ago today that I announced the formation and start of my solo practice, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Back then, my children were in elementary and middle school. Now I have two college students, one at Appalachian State University (with a budding photography talent that has provided some photos for this blog (including that on this post)) and the other at West Virginia University, and a rising high school junior. In just the past year I began a tenure on the Section Council Virginia Bar Association Construction and Public Contracts Law section and chair of its Legislative Committee where I assisted in the drafting of the change in the mechanic’s lien form that takes effect today..
I was named to both the Virginia Business Magazine Legal Elite in Construction Law and for a 3rd consecutive year to Virginia Super Lawyers in Construction Litigation. I spoke on how to deal with a DPOR complaint this past November at the 39th Annual Construction Law and Public Contracts seminar (one I highly recommend for any lawyer interested in construction).
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
