Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit
August 24, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057796, filed 5/27/20, ord. pub. 6/18/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer’s special Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion to strike because, while the alleged acts were generally connected to litigation, they did not include any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body and, therefore, did not constitute protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
In Trilogy Plumbing, the policyholder was sued in 33 different construction defect lawsuits, some of which Navigators defended, and others which were denied or had the defense withdrawn. The Navigators’ policies were subject to a $5,000 deductible, and Trilogy alleged that Navigators breached the contracts by “demanding deductible reimbursement amounts greater than the policies’ $5,000 stated deductible, and by seeking reimbursement of ordinary defense fees and expenses as if they were subject to deductible reimbursement,” “claiming a right to seek reimbursement from Trilogy for defense fees and expenses Navigators paid for the benefit of third-party additional insureds,” “providing conflicted defense counsel who took instructions only from Navigators without disclosing conflicts of interest,” “failing to reasonably settle cases and by withdrawing [the] defense as a strategic means of trying to force Trilogy to fund its own settlements,” “misrepresenting its deductible provisions,” “refusing to account for deductible amounts it charges and collects,” and others.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Bidding for Success
May 22, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsWhen construction companies develop a history of successful projects, they often consider bidding on larger projects. However, larger projects can carry greater risks.
If your company has successfully completed numerous $10 million projects and is considering a bid on a $100 million project, there are several factors to consider before submitting a proposal. That is because bidding on the wrong project could potentially put you out of business.
“When a contractor bids a larger project, there is a greater financial risk,” says Tim Holicky, a senior executive underwriter at The Hartford. There are more subcontractors to manage and additional materials to purchase, which all leads to greater financial risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”
May 13, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyIn fact, you didn’t even have a license.
A federal court in Alabama was tasked with determining whether an unlicensed contractor could recover from an Alabama project owner for in excess of $1.7 million in construction infrastructure and site work performed. In fact, the contractor “did not have a valid general contractor’s license” in the state of Alabama when it “assumed work on the project from its predecessor company.”
During the course of work on the project, the principals of an original contractor decided to go their separate ways, whereupon one of those principals announced that his new company would take over ongoing work. Roughly two months after the new company began working at the project, the contractor applied for a license with the Alabama Licensing Board of General Contractors – the license was issued within about 45 days. Then, some eight months later, the contractor added a “municipal and utilities” classification to its contractor license.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Commercial Real Estate Brokerages in an Uncertain Russian Market
March 28, 2022 —
Cait Horner & Adam J. Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogSeveral commercial real estate firms have joined the growing list of companies temporarily suspending – or outright terminating – property and facility management operations in Russia amid economic sanctions and mounting international pressure. CBRE is the latest to make such a move, discontinuing its Russian leasing, investment and property management operations and denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in a statement issued March 7th. Other major players, including Savills, Knight Frank, and Colliers, have already suspended operations in the country, citing similar concern for international sanctions and the humanitarian impact of the invasion. Colliers is going even further to suspend operations in Belarus as well. Recently, global real estate service giant JLL switched course, issuing a formal statement that “with great sadness,” it will begin the process of separating from its domestic operations in Russia, though not commenting on whether the separation will be temporary or permanent. This is a significant change from just earlier this month , where, when asked about pulling operations from the country, JLL stated it would stay abreast of the situation abroad and continue to ensure the safety of its people and clients.
Now that CBRE and Dallas-based JLL have joined the list, Houston-based powerhouse Hines appears to be continuing its “wait and see” approach. Hines currently owns Russian assets valued at $2.9 billion, nearly 2 percent of its entire $160 billion asset portfolio, and its property management portfolio manages more than 243 million square feet worldwide. While other firms have temporarily suspended current operations, Hines has gone so far as to say it will avoid servicing any future investments in the country, though it did similarly condemn Russia’s actions. With JLL’s recent decision , if Hines does take a stronger stance, it will likely happen soon.
Reprinted courtesy of
Cait Horner, Pillsbury and
Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury
Ms. Horner may be contacted at cait.horner@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage
November 18, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the Faulty Workmanship Exclusion only barred coverage for damages arising from problems with the property under construction itself and not to losses incurred to correct damage from accidents during construction. See 1756 First Associates, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2011).
A tower crane collapsed at the construction site, causing damage. First Associates tendered the claim to its insurer, Continental. Continental reimbursed First Associates for certain costs arising from damage to and cleanup of the construction site and building stemming from the crane collapse. Continental refused, however, to reimburse First Associates for costs associated with construction delays resulting from the collapse.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment
February 28, 2022 —
C. Ryan Jones & Scot E. Samis - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis recently obtained affirmation of final summary judgment in favor of a windstorm and general insurance provider (“Insurer”) in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The Appellant, a restoration service provider (“Restoration Service”), provided emergency mitigation services in the wake of hurricane damage to a residential home that was covered by an insurance policy issued by the Insurer. The Restoration Service invoiced the Insurer and, following an investigation, the Insurer paid a portion of the invoiced amount and invoked the policy’s appraisal clause to resolve the dispute over the difference. The Restoration Service brought suit against the Insurer, arguing that the appraisal process did not apply to mitigation services. The Insurer countered that it was entitled to resolve the claim by appraisal and, following arguments, the Court determined that the appraisal provision applied to mitigation services.
Reprinted courtesy of
C. Ryan Jones, Traub Lieberman and
Scot E. Samis, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Samis may be contacted at ssamis@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?
May 31, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAs you may know, material prices have been climbing. And they continue to climb based on the volatility of the material market. On top of that, there are lead times in getting material due to supply chain and other related concerns. The question is, how are you addressing these risks? These are risks that need to be addressed in your contract.
As it relates to climbing material prices, one consideration is a material escalation provision. The objective of this provision is to address the volatility of the material market in economic climates, such as today’s climate, where the price of material continues to climb. Locking down a material price today will be different than locking down the same price months from today. This volatility and risk impacts pricing and budgets. Naturally, an owner and contractor would like to be in a position to lock down supplier prices as soon as possible—both to secure pricing and to account for items with long lead times or that recent data forecasts a long lead time due to supply chain concerns. However, this is not always possible or practical and can depend on numerous issues such as when the owner contracts with the contractor, when the owner issues the notice to proceed (and permits are issued), final construction documents and revisions to the construction documents, the type of material, whether there is staging or storage available for the materials, and the current status including climitazation of the project.
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
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion
March 01, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”.
The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
