US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed
August 14, 2023 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordIn a ruling without explanation in response to an emergency appeal by the project developer, the U.S. Supreme Court on July 27 said work to complete the Mountain Valley gas pipeline can proceed. The decision follows an order earlier this month by the Richmond, Va., appeals court to halt restart of work on the much-litigated and delayed $6.6-billion, 303-mile natural gas pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia, after new lawsuits filed by opponent groups.
Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise
August 17, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries & Andrea DeField - Hunton Andrews KurthOn June 29, in a development that may fundamentally change the landscape for California businesses which have sustained COVID-19 related business interruption loss, two California legislators amended pending legislation to address several of the most hotly contested issues regarding insurance recovery for these devastating losses.
The bill, Assembly Bill 1552, focuses on All-Risk property insurance policies. As amended, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that COVID-19 was present on and caused physical damage to property which was the direct cause of business interruption. A similar rebuttable presumption would apply to orders of civil authority coverage and to ingress/egress coverage. The bill would further prohibit COVID-19 from being construed as a pollutant or contaminant for purposes of any policy exclusion unless the exclusion specifically referred to viruses. The bill would apply to any All-Risk policy in effect on or after March 4, 2020 and is written to satisfy the standards for an “urgency” statute, taking effect immediately upon being signed into law.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries , Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence
September 23, 2019 —
Ashley L. Cooper - SDV InsightsA recent Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in, Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Owners Association, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743 (2019), strengthens Illinois’ precedent favoring construction defects as an occurrence under a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policy. Acuity also broadens an insurance carrier’s obligation to defend its insured against construction defect allegations.
In Acuity, the court determined whether claims for construction defect filed against a subcontractor, triggered a duty to defend under a CGL policy. To make its determination, the court focused on the subcontractor’s scope of work. The court notes that a subcontractor normally contracts for a discrete scope of work on a project. Unlike a general contractor, who has control over or contractual obligations for all aspects of the project, a subcontractor does not have those board responsibilities. The court explained that “[f]rom the eyes of the subcontractor, the ‘project’ is limited to the scope of its own work, and the precise nature of any damage that might occur to something outside of that scope is as unknown or unforeseeable as damage to something entirely outside of the construction project.”
Accordingly, the court in Acuity held that when a complaint alleges that a subcontractor’s negligence caused damage to a part of the construction project outside of the subcontractor’s scope of work, the allegations are enough to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the subcontractor under a CGL policy. The court’s decision in Acuity relied on a similar Illinois Appellate Court decision, Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 956 N.E.2d 524 (Ill. App. 2011). In Larsen, the court reached a similar conclusion where a third-party complaint by a general contractor against a subcontractor alleged that the subcontractor’s improper window caulking caused water intrusion and property damage to other parts of the building. The court in Larsen held that because the complaint alleged not only construction defects, but also damage to other property outside the subcontractor’s scope of work, the insurer had a duty to defend the subcontractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Cooper may be contacted at
alc@sdvlaw.com
Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law
September 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Jeffrey Gilbert and Anaysa Gallardo Stutzman of Cozen O’Connor, Rick Scott, governor of Florida, signed HB 87 into law, which “amends the notice and opportunity to cure provisions of Chapter 558, Florida’s Construction Defect Statute.” The amendments go into effect October first.
HB 87 requires “property owners to provide concrete details of the alleged defects.” Gilbert and Stutzman claimed, “Overall, these amendments seek to further the intended public policy purpose of Chapter 558, which is to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and result in fewer lawsuits and lower litigation costs incurred by parties involved in construction defect matters.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Read the Property Insurance Policy to be Sure You are Complying with Post Loss Obligations
January 04, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesI have discussed this before in prior postings, but it is worth repeating. It is imperative for an insured to comply with post loss obligations in a property insurance policy. Not doing so gives the insurer the argument that its insured forfeited coverage under the policy. Naturally, this is never what an insured wants as this is contrary to submitting an insurance claim to begin with. To avoid this situation, an insured should consult with counsel and read the policy including endorsements issued to the policy to be sure that post loss obligations are complied with and, if they are not, there is a basis supported by case law.
In a recent case, Goldberg v. Universal Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2118b (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), the property insurance policy for hurricanes and windstorms contained the following through an endorsement issued to the policy:
You must give notice of a claim, a supplemental claim, or reopened claim for loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane, with us in accordance with the terms of this policy and within three years after the hurricane first made landfall or the windstorm caused the covered damage. For purposes of this Section, the term “supplemental claim” or “reopened claim” means any additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim. . . .
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
Administration Seeks To Build New FBI HQ on Current D.C. Site
February 28, 2018 —
Tom Ichniowski – ENRA Senate committee plans to examine a new $3.3-billion Trump administration proposal to demolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation's worn, outmoded headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., and construct a new facility on that site.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-RecordMr. Ichniowski may be contacted at
ichniowskit@enr.com
Environmental Roundup – May 2019
July 09, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelFederal Courts of Appeal
Dam Claims Collapse
On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided the case of Navelski, et al. v. International Paper Company. After a major storm, a dam constructed by International Paper to serve the operations of its local paper mill, was breached, releasing millions of gallons of water into a nearby creek resulting in the flooding of many homes located downstream from the creek. IP was sued by the homeowners in a class action, alleging negligence and strict liability for conducting an abnormally dangerous activity. The trial court dismissed the strict liability claim, and the jury found IP was not negligent in the operation of the dam. On appeal, the court upheld the jury verdict, agreeing that the verdict was supported by the evidence heard by the jury. The appeals court also agreed that the strict liability claim was properly dismissed as a matter of law because the operation of this dam was not an abnormally dangerous activity under Florida law. The plaintiffs had also argued that the jury should not have been advised that the home county, Escambia County, has applied for a FEMA grant which apparently made the case that some of the downstream homes were naturally prone to flooding. A redacted version of the application was allowed to be shown to the jury, but the appeals court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the court ruling was prejudicial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
