No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims
June 09, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Illinois law, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for the insured's settlement of claims based upon breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro North Condo. Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43452 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2016).
Metro North sued the developer of its condominium and a number of its contractors and subcontractors for defective construction that caused various problems, including water infiltration. One subcontractor, CSC, was to provide window and glazing services. After a rainstorm, water infiltrated the project due to CSC's work. Metro North claimed that CSC was liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wyncrest Commons: Commonly Used Progress Payments in Construction Contracts Do Not Render Them Installment Contracts
December 11, 2023 —
Benjamin J. Hochberg - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.In BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc. v. Wyncrest Commons, LP, 2023 WL 7276637 (Unpublished, decided November 3, 2023), the New Jersey Appellate Division was asked to consider two issues regarding the interpretation and application of a construction contract that utilized the standard form American Institute of Architects owner/contractor agreement (AIA Document A101-2007) (the “AIA Contract”). Specifically, it was asked to consider: 1) whether a modified AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” whereby each progress payment was subject to its own statute of limitations; and 2) whether and when work had been approved in the context of New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law. While the decision is presently unpublished, it provides guidance as to how form contracts utilizing the same or similar terms will be treated by New Jersey’s courts and is a reminder that the potential for future claims must be considered during contract negotiations.
Discussion
The primary issue in Wyncrest was whether an AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” and the remaining issues turned on the resolution of this question. Wyncrest, the owner for the project at issue, did not dispute that its contractor, BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc., had not been fully paid for work that it had performed in connection with a construction project located in Ocean County, New Jersey. Instead, Wyncrest argued that because its AIA Contract with BIL-JIM required that invoices be presented and paid monthly, it constituted an “installment contract.” As such, older payments would be treated as individual transactions and were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court agreed with Wyncrest’s characterization of the AIA Contract as an “installment contract,” and found that BIL-JIM’s invoices were each subject to their own statute of limitations. However, the trial court disagreed with Wyncrest’s argument that BIL-JIM’s claim for retainage—which was submitted at the end of its work at the project—was time barred.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Benjamin J. Hochberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Hochberg may be contacted at
bhochberg@pecklaw.com
The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors
March 28, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor years, the statute regarding performing construction without a valid license (
Va. Code 54.1-1115) was a bit murky. While that statute listed several prohibited acts, among them contracting without the proper class of license or use of the license of another, the consequences of such activity, in particular the effect that such action would have on the enforcement of a construction contract (Section C of the statute), were less than clear.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails
June 17, 2015 —
Patrick G. Lee – BloombergIt started with a hunch about malfunctioning highway guardrails. It led to the biggest known whistle-blower award in U.S. history.
Joshua Harman, a Virginian with two small highway safety companies, made a discovery in late 2011 that perhaps only a guardrail maker could: A big competitor had changed the dimensions of its roadside safety device by as much as an inch here and there, he said, without telling federal regulators.
As designed, Trinity Industries Inc.’s ET-Plus system was meant to turn the end of a guardrail into a de facto shock absorber. The altered units, as Harman saw it, were locking up when hit, spearing cars and their occupants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick G. Lee, Bloomberg
New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages
February 27, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews KurthIn a huge win for policyholders, a New York appellate court, in D.K. Property, Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., held that an insured need not provide a detailed factual description or explanation for why consequential damages are recoverable at the pleading stage. Rather, an insured’s complaint must only (i) specify the types of consequential damages claimed; and (ii) allege that those damages reasonably were contemplated by the parties prior to contracting.
Here, D.K. Property’s building was damaged as a result of construction on an adjoining building, and it timely filed a claim with National Union under a policy that covers “direct physical loss or damage to” the building. National Union neither paid the claim nor disclaimed coverage. Instead, according to D.K. Property, National Union made unreasonable and increasingly burdensome information demands over a three-year period, which it alleges was a “tactic” to make pursuing the claim so expensive that D.K. Property would abandon the claim. As a result of the delay, D.K. Property alleges the structural damage to its building has worsened.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact
November 10, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesConstruction liens need to be recorded within 90 days from the lienor’s final furnishing date on the project. This date is exclusive of punchlist or warranty work. The final furnishing date needs to be proven at trial to establish that the construction lien was timely recorded. If there is an evidentiary dispute as the final furnishing date (the contractor claims the date was “x” to establish the lien was timely and the owner claims the date was “y” to establish the lien was untimely), then the date is a question of fact to be determined by the jury.
For instance, in Best Drywall Services, Inc. v. Blasczyk, 2016 WL 6246701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), a contractor and owner entered into an oral agreement for a residential renovation project. The contractor recorded a construction lien after its final two invoices went unpaid. During trial, the contractor offered conflicting evidence as to when its final furnishing date on the project was. Numerous dates were offered in the record including dates that were more than 90 days prior to the date the contractor recorded its lien, meaning the lien was arguably untimely. As a result, the trial judge entered a directed verdict in favor of the owner and against the contractor on the contractor’s lien claim finding the lien was untimely recorded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar
May 03, 2018 —
Don MacGregor - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Twenty-five years ago. 1993. On January 23rd, Bill Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd President of the United States. The average cost of a gallon of gasoline was $1.16, a movie ticket cost $4.00, and the average cost of a new home was $113,200.00.
1993 also marked the first of what would be a quarter century of annual seminars hosted by West Coast Casualty Service, and provided to the combined professionals within the construction defect community. As the seminar has grown both in attendance and prominence within this community under the watchful stewardship of David and Coral Stern, much has changed both with regard to the content of the seminar and the climate within which it was presented. A quick look at the topics addressed over the past 25 years of the Construction Defect Seminar provides one with a veritable history of construction defect litigation and insurance coverage trends across the United States and beyond.
While the first seminar was hosted in 1993, my first attendance didn’t occur until 1999, and the first time I was honored to be a panelist would have to wait until 2007. In the subsequent years, I’ve had the opportunity to sit on panels an additional three times, and each one I gained rare and valuable insights into the construction defect community, its willingness to challenge itself, and the amazing professionals we all have the distinct pleasure of working with every day (and whom we sometimes take too much for granted).
In the mid to late 90’s, topics at the seminar included such subjects as the Montrose Chemical Corp v. Superior Court decision (Montrose) regarding a carrier’s duty to defend and the subsequent Stonewall Insurance case that examined the duty to indemnify in the context of construction defect claims. The California Calderon Act of 1997, laying out the roadmap for HOA’s filing construction defect lawsuits was also a topic of discussion and debate within the West Coast “arena.”
The new millennium saw the landmark Aas v. William Lyon decision, which disallowed negligence claims for construction defects in the absence of actual resultant damage. This was followed by Presley Homes v. American States Insurance wherein the court ruled that a duty to defend applies where there is mere potential for coverage and the duty to defend applies to the entire action. Each of these bellwether decisions was addressed contemporaneously by panels at the West Coast seminar, contemporaneously bringing additional dialog to the CD community, from within the community.
2002 brought what has become the defining legislation in California regarding construction defect litigation and a builder’s right to repair. Senate Bill 800 (SB800), and its subsequent codification as Title 7, Part 2 of Division 2 of the California Civil Code, Sections 895 through 945.5 would become the defining framework for similar legislation across the United States. During the course of its drafting, movement through the legislature, and final adoption in January of 1993, many of the questions raised and debated in committees in Sacramento, had already been and were continuing to be addressed by panelists at the West Coast Seminar. How does SB800 work with Calderon? How does it affect the prior Aas decision? What now constitutes a defect, and what are timeframes established within the complex pre-litigation process? Open the pages of the 2002 – 2004 seminar invitations and you’ll see panels comprised of the finest members of the insurance law and coverage communities addressing those very questions (and more)!
As the first decade of the new century drew to a close, a brief review of the WCC invitations from that period suggests a trend towards programmatic analyses of key themes selected for the seminar. In 2008, my second opportunity as a guest speaker, topics included a review of the state of construction defect litigation in a post-SB 800 environment. Panelists offered retrospective insight into the state of right to repair statutes in multiple states, while others offered a glimpse at where the industry might be headed, as similar legislation was enacted across the country. As always, pertinent court decisions bearing on construction defect, both in California, and elsewhere were given unique perspective and additional clarity by multiple panels of gifted speakers. In 2009, claims and coverage were examined from multiple unique perspectives, including that of plaintiff, the policyholder, and the insurer. Wrap policies and the gaps in due to self-insured retention obligations were examined.
As we rapidly approach the end of the second decade of the 21st Century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar continues to lead the construction defect community as the premier source for information and peer dialog on all matters relating to construction law, coverage, and emerging trends. In 2017, the Seminar tackled such broad subjects as the role of women in the construction industry, claims management, and risk management, challenges raised by wrap versus non-wrap litigation, and the emergent trend of apartment to condo conversions (and the attendant coverage challenges).
This month, beginning on May 16th at the Disneyland Resort, in Anaheim California, America’s largest Construction Defect event kicks off its 25th Anniversary celebration. As has been every year since 1993, the seminar invitation promises insurance, legal, and industry professionals an exciting and informative array of salient and timely panel topics, as well as a stellar faculty of gifted panelists. If this year’s seminar is anything like the past 25 years, this edition of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar will not only be informative and educational, but also a promise for another 25 years of peerless service to the construction defect community.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
