Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law
November 17, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly -Insurance Law HawaiiInterpreting Florida law, the United States District Court found there was no duty to defend a contractor against construction defect claims. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Dimmucci Dev. Corp. of Ponce Inlet, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678 (M.D. Fla. Sept 13, 2016).
The insured built condominiums and townhomes. It held three successive CGL policies issued by Evanston. The "your work" exclusion in the policies barred coverage as follows:
"Property Damage" to "your work" arising out of it or any part of it and included in the "products-completed operations hazard."
This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor.
The insured constructed the Towers Grande Condominium. In 2012 the Towers Grande Condominium Association, Inc. initiated the underlying action alleging that the insured's failure to construct the Towers Grande properly resulted in building defects and deficiencies. Damage to the roof, generator exhaust pipe, and HVAC system was alleged. Further, water intrusion and decking/structural issues were claimed. In addition to the construction defects, the Association also alleged that the insured's faulty work led to additional damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
When Licensing Lapses: How One Contractor Lost a $1 Million Dispute
October 28, 2024 —
Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction LawAs a construction lawyer, contractor licensing is a very key aspect of my practice. This can include new contractor applications, increase or changes in monetary limits or license classifications, change in ownership or qualifying agent , and, of course, licensing violations.
The recent decision in Incident365 Florida, LLC v. Ocean Pointe V Condominium Association serves as an important reminder for general contractors and subcontractors regarding the significance of proper licensing and thorough contract review in disaster recovery and construction services.
Case Overview
In this case, Incident365 Florida, LLC entered into disaster recovery agreements with several condominium associations (“Associations”) following Hurricane Irma. The agreements involved various tasks such as water damage mitigation, dehumidification, and the removal of unsalvageable materials. However, Incident365 lacked the appropriate contractor’s license when performing the work, which became a focal point in the dispute when the Associations refused to pay the remaining balance of $1 million, citing the absence of the required licensure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew DeVries, BuchalterMr. DeVries may be contacted at
mdevries@buchalter.com
Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?
October 01, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFForbes notes that residential builders and remodelers are one of the fastest-growing groups of privately held companies, but is that growth going to continue? Tim McPeak, an analyst at Sageworks, said, “aside from the strong sales growth, these companies have a relatively healthy 4.6% net profit margin.” Another analyst, Scott Cresswell of The Bonadio Group, said that his “clients who do multifamily are exponentially off the charts with new work.
Cresswell also noted that firms in the Northeast are also experiences labor shortages, particularly with wood-frame construction, since, “there are not a lot of carpenters out there.” As a result of the new construction, some workers are more money from overtime.
A further hike in interest rates may stop this growth. Mr. McPeak noted that “the expectation of everyone is we’re going to see rates rise.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage
June 18, 2014 —
Robert F. Walsh and Paul A. Briganti – White and Williams LLPOn June 10, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) issued a unanimous decision in KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (No. 110, June 10, 2014), reversing a lower court decision which had erroneously imposed on insurers a duty to disclaim coverage for property damage claims as soon as possible or risk waiving their coverage defenses. White and Williams represented one of the insurance company defendants in the action.
The case involved an action against three excess insurers for insurance coverage for underlying environmental claims arising from Manufactured Gas Plant sites. Upon receiving notice of the underlying claims, the three insurers reserved their rights to deny coverage on various grounds, including late notice of an occurrence, pending an investigation. The insurers ultimately denied coverage on the basis of late notice several years later based on information developed in discovery in the litigation. The policyholder/plaintiff KeySpan argued that the insurers had unreasonably delayed in issuing their disclaimers and that there was a triable issue of fact on whether such a delay amounted to a waiver of the late notice defense.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client
January 02, 2019 —
Steven J. Pearse, Esq. & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerSenate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES.
California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern.
SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code.
This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation.
California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation.
The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard
December 11, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe Privette doctrine, so-called because of a case of the same name,
Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 698 (1993), provides a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. In other words, if a property owner hires a contractor, and one of the contractor’s employees gets injured while working on the property, there is a rebuttable presumption that the property owner is not liable for the employee’s injuries, the rationale being that because the contractor is required to carry workers’ compensation insurance the contractor is in the better position to absorb losses incurred a workplace injury.
There are, however, two widely recognized exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, is the Hooker exception, again named after a case of the same name,
Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.th 198 (2002), which provides that a hirer is liable for injuries to a hired parties’ employees, if the hirer retained control over the work being performed, negligently exercised that control, and the negative exercise of that control contributed to the employee’s injury.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess
January 09, 2015 —
Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico – White and Williams LLPIn lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.”
So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.”
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Maurice Pesso,
Greg M. Steinberg and
Christopher J. Orrico
Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages
July 15, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine, Andrea DeField & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA coverage dispute arising as a result of property damage from Hurricane Frances, which occurred in 2004, will continue following a Florida appellate court decision in an action brought against Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
The insureds, Manor House, LLC, Ocean View, LLC, and Merrit, LLC, presented a claim to Citizens for damage sustained at nine apartment buildings as a result of Hurricane Florence. After payments for a portion of the property damage were sustained, Citizens continued to dispute the full amount due. Meanwhile, the insureds suffered lost rental income because of the delay. Ultimately, the insureds filed suit against Citizens alleging, among other things, breach of contract and fraud, and sought to recover extra-contractual damages for loss of rental income due to the delay in adjusting and repairing the damaged property.
The trial court granted Citizens’ motion for partial summary judgment on several issues, including Citizens’ motion for partial summary judgment regarding appraiser and umpire fees; motion for partial summary judgment to prevent the insureds from pursuing a claim for extra-contractual, consequential damages; and motion for judgment on the pleadings on the insured’s claim for fraud.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
Michael S. Levine,
Andrea DeField and
Daniel Hentschel
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
