Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.”
According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument.
Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium
September 07, 2020 —
Ashlynn E. Hutton, Michael J. Crook & Christian F. Torgrimson - Construction ExecutiveDespite the ongoing pandemic, states are opening up for business and establishing a new normal. This determination to move forward includes pushing public transportation projects full steam ahead. While this may be good news for certain industries, it may not be for commercial property owners hoping to see a slow down to public projects and avoid a taking of private property. As many grapple with new economic realities, we examine the approaches employed by states in the southeast to manage construction of public projects in this unprecedented time.
GEORGIA
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is moving forward with all of its previously funded public projects, including the massive I-285 Top-End Project, designated as a “Major Mobility Project” for the Atlanta metro region. Affecting approximately 260 property owners along I-285 and Georgia Highway 400, environmental review of the project continues. GDOT anticipates a contract let date in 2022 and construction start in 2023. Like ocean liners, these projects don’t turn on a dime. Under the 2015 Transportation Funding Act, the budgeted funds cannot be shifted to other needs or projects due to economic shutdown. Once environmental review is complete, GDOT will approve the final design and move toward acquiring right-of-way from affected property owners.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashlynn E. Hutton, Michael J. Crook & Christian F. Torgrimson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.
Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.
Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.
The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”
The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.
The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers
November 09, 2020 —
Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & VitaShutdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted an unprecedented number of business income and business interruption insurance claims. Many claims have resulted in litigation and require judicial intervention to determine whether private insurance carriers owe policyholders indemnification for pandemic related losses. Private insurance carriers that have denied the claims, in large part, argue that they did not underwrite coverage for the pandemic and assert that pandemic coverage is much too unpredictable to underwrite. Private carriers contend that a government-backed insurance program is necessary to mitigate the economic impact resulting from pandemic claims.
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted real estate owners and developers. Real estate owners and developers have sustained business income losses in the form of lost rents at commercial properties, service disruption, labor and/ or material shortages, to name a few. Questions about whether the virus caused “direct physical damage,” as well as whether specific “virus exclusions” on policies, have provided hurdles to coverage under existing schemes, click here.Those that have filed lawsuits against their insurers seeking coverage under current policy terms are having mixed results, at best. Click here to view SDV’s Litigation Tracker. A predictable source of indemnification for future pandemic-related losses would greatly relieve business disruption and, ultimately, the impact on the economy. However, the question remains, who will pay for such massive losses?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McWilliams may be contacted at
AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com
Fine Art Losses – “Canvas” the Subrogation Landscape
February 26, 2024 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIf a fire or flood destroys a high-net-worth client’s fine art collection, an insurer who pays out a claim related to the loss has an incentive to pursue subrogation. This article explores some of the issues an insurer should “canvas” before pursuing subrogation for these types of claims.
Damage to fine art can occur in a number of ways. For instance, fine art may be damaged in a natural disaster – such as a flood or a wildfire. Artwork may also be accidentally damaged because of a transportation-related incident physically damaging the art. In addition, artwork may suffer fire or smoke damage from a fire within a building. Another possibility is that the artwork suffers damage because of renovations either to the insured’s home or a neighboring property. For example, a renovation contractor may damage artwork due to vibrations or leaking water. A construction worker, moreover, may turn with a tool in his hand, or trip and fall, damaging the artwork.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of
December 04, 2023 —
Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Contractors and construction managers who enter into cost reimbursable contracts subject to a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) are responsible for all project costs exceeding the GMP. For this reason, it is imperative that contractors negotiate and incorporate into the GMP a financial buffer that accounts for the unanticipated project costs that are not reimbursable as change orders or costs of the work. This is where the contractor’s contingency comes into play.[
1]
The contractor’s contingency is a vehicle that allows contractors to mitigate some of the risks inherent in GMP contracts. When drafted properly, a contingency clause allows the contractor and only the contractor to access funds set aside by the owner to address unpredictable or unknown project costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at
ssantomartino@pecklaw.com
The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest
November 16, 2020 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Konrad R. Krebs - White and WilliamsIt is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have consolidated — in a single massive proceeding — all federal lawsuits seeking COVID-related business interruption coverage from insurers. The Panel acknowledged common legal issues, and potential benefits of coordinated management, but it balanced those benefits against the numerous factual differences between policies, carriers, and insureds, and noted that “[t]hese differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.”
Then, after lengthy argument, the Panel ordered further briefing as to whether separate, company-specific MDL proceedings might be appropriate against five specific insurance carriers: specifically, the five carriers against whom the largest numbers of federal claims were pending.
By choosing these five carriers and not others for further argument, the Panel seemed to be suggesting a formula: the larger the carrier, and the greater the number of claims against it, the greater the potential benefit from coordinated management, and the stronger the plaintiffs’ case for pre-trial consolidation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Hermanson, White and WilliamsMr. Hermanson may be contacted at
hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results
October 21, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.”
Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage.
Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
