Insurers' Motion to Void Coverage for Failure to Attend EUO Denied
January 04, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion for summary judgment and disposal of the insureds' claim due to failure to attend an examination under oath (EUO) was denied. Perkins v Syndicate 4242 of Lloyd's of London, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196922 (W.D. La. Oct. 28, 2022).
The insureds' home suffered damage from Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, and Hurricane Delta on October 9, 2020. The insureds reported damage after Hurricane Laura under the homeowners policy. They filed suit in August 2021, alleging that Lloyds failed to adequately inspect their claims. The court issued a Case Management Order (CMO) that governed initial disclosures and the parties' participation in a streamlined settlement process for hurricane claims. The dispute did not settle, however, so the matter was set for a bench trial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs
July 01, 2019 —
Vincent C. Zabielski & Julia Kalinina Belcher - Gravel2GavelCan an employer recover liquidated damages (LDs) from a contractor if the contract terminates before the contractor completes the work?
Surprisingly, heretofore, English law provided no clear answer to this seemingly straightforward question, and inconsistent case law over the past century has left a trail of confusion. Given the widespread use of English law in international construction contracts, this uncertainty had gone on far too long.
The good news is that drafters of construction contracts throughout the world can now have a well-deserved good night’s sleep courtesy of the English Court of Appeal’s March 2019 decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230.
The Triple Point case concerned the delayed supply by Triple Point (the “Contractor”) of a new software system to employer PTT. The contract provided for payments upon achievement of milestones, however order forms incorporated into the contract set out the calendar dates on which fixed amounts were payable by PTT, resulting in an apparently contradictory requirements on when payment was due. Triple Point achieved completion (149 days late) of a portion of the work milestones, and were paid for that work. Triple Point then sought payment for the work which was not yet completed, relying on the calendar dates in the order forms rather than achievement of milestone payments. Things got progressively worse as PTT refused payment, Triple Point suspended the work for PTT’s failure to pay, PTT terminated the contract and then appointed a new contractor to complete the work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and
Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury
Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn the UK, be careful what you tell your insurer; the Court of Appeal has upheld the legality of basis clauses. As Paul Lewis and Janetta Gibbs of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP explain, “a basis clause is a provision set out in the proposal form or in the insurance contract itself, to the effect that all or any of the answers to the questions in the proposal shall form the basis of the contract of insurance.” The catch, as they point out, is that “should any of those answers — whether material to the risk or not — prove to be untrue, the insurer may repudiate the policy and treat itself as never having been on risk.” There is a move in the UK to abolish the use of basis clauses in business insurance, but currently they are still legal.
This came up in a construction defect case covering latent defects in a public housing project. The contract between the owner, Genesis Housing Association Limited, and the contractor, Time and Tide (Bedford) Ltd, required TT Bedford to indemnify Genesis if it became insolvent. In the contract with the insurer, representatives of Bedford and Genesis referred to the contractor as “TT Construction.”
While the courts concluded that Bedford and Genesis were not guilty of misrepresentation or intent to defraud, they did note that neither party thought the firm’s name was “TT Construction.” Therefore, over the failure to name the builder correctly, the court found that the insurance contract was invalid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jury Could Have Found That Scissor Lift Manufacturer Should Have Included “Better” Safety Features
January 02, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogA few years ago I listened to an NPR segment called “
What Can Kids Learn by Doing Dangerous Things?” It was about a summer program called the Tinkering School where kids can learn to build things, using tools of course, including power tools.
The founder of the program, Gever Tulley, also wrote a book entitled
50 Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do), in which he argued that while well-intentioned, children today are overly protected, and that giving children exposure to “slightly” dangerous things can help foster independence, responsibility, and problem-solving as well as a healthy dose of caution.
The plaintiff in the next case might have benefitted from that program.
In
Camacho v. JLG Industries Inc., 93 Cal.App.5th 809 (2023), the Court of Appeals examined whether the manufacturer of a scissor lift should have incorporated “better” safety features when a construction worker fell from the lift.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions
November 02, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is ostensibly a big difference between an insurance carrier DENYING coverage and simply asking for additional information, as permitted under the post-loss conditions of a property (first-party) insurance policy, right? Typically, the answer is yes and there is a big difference. If an insured refuses to comply with post-loss conditions under their insurance policy, they are shooting themselves in the foot (in most cases) by giving the insurer an out when it comes to coverage. If an insurance carrier denies coverage, however, the insurance carrier cannot then require its insured to comply with post-loss conditions in the property insurance policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?
February 23, 2017 —
Yas Omidi - California Construction Law BlogAre you a general contractor who is pretty sure that you have additional insured coverage for some stuff under your sub-subcontractor’s excess policy? Advent, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. H041934 (December 6, 2016) warns you to be a little more specific.
Johnson Western Gunite was the shotcrete sub-subcontractor on a job. One of its employees—specifically, Jerry Kielty—tumbled down a stairwell, sustaining severe bodily injury thereby. Kielty filed suit against the general contractor in charge of the job—Advent, Inc.—amongst others. Kielty did not name his employer Johnson in the suit. In terms of insurance:
Advent was insured under a primary insurance policy issued by Landmark American Insurance Company and an excess policy issued by Topa Insurance Company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yas Omidi, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMs. Omidi may be contacted at
yomidi@wendel.com
Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”
The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”
D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:
“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”
The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.
The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.
Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.
The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II
October 16, 2018 —
George Talarico - Construction ExecutivePart I addressed general conditions, revised insurance terms, revisions that affect owner’s required insurance and revisions that affect contractor’s required insurance.
REVISIONS THAT AFFECT DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A seemingly minor but noteworthy change is to the definition of “Claim.” Under Section 15.1 a “Claim” is defined to:
- include a request for a modification of contract time; and
- exclude any requirement that an owner must file a claim to impose liquidated damages.
Notably, any request relating to contract time must be brought within the specified time period for Notice of Claim and in the prescribed manner. There are at least two traps for the unwary. First, even though email is regularly used for communications among the parties, the revised contract documents do not recognize email as an acceptable form of delivery of a Notice of Claim. Second, an unwary contractor may wrongly assume that an owner’s failure to assert a claim for LDs means that LDs will not be imposed. This may lull the contractor into failing to timely assert its own claim for a time extension and thereby waiving its ability to do so.
Reprinted courtesy of
George Talarico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Talarico may be contacted at
gtalarico@sillscummis.com
