Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy
April 02, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted, in part, the insured's motion for summary judgment by finding that matching roof tiles were required under the policy. Bertisen v. Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3907 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2024).
The insureds sued Travelers for breach of contract, common law bad faith, and unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. They alleged that their residence was damaged by a hailstorm and that Travelers breached their policy and acted in bad faith in the handling of the claim. The insureds demanded an appraisal to determine the "amount of loss" under the policy and an appraisal award was issued. Travelers then denied payment for all roof tiles that were contemplated by the appraisal award.
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
Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated
April 26, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorezCDJ STAFFDecision Affirmed in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate. In the trial case, Central Arkansas Foundation Homes (CAFH) sought payment for a home built for Choate, while Choate alleged that the builders committed multiple construction defects including using the wrong foundation materials and positioning the house in the wrong direction.
After the house was built, CAFH contacted Choate regarding payment, however, Choate alleged that the finished product did not match the contract. “ After CAFH completed construction, it obtained permanent home financing for Choate and tried to contact her to close the transaction. Choate did not respond until October 2005, when she sent CAFH a list of alleged construction defects, including that the house was facing in the wrong direction; that it was not built on a slab; and that the fireplace, garbage disposal, driveway, and storage area were missing. CAFH replied to Choate in writing, telling her that she had until January 6, 2006, to close on the house or CAFH would sell it. The correspondence enclosed worksheets showing that the amount Choate would owe at closing exceeded $94,000, which included interest that had accrued on the as-yet unpaid construction loan.”
Initially, the court found in favor of CAFH. “On April 18, 2007, Choate’s attorney withdrew from representing her. Soon thereafter, CAFH’s attorney asked the court to set a final hearing on the case. The attorney purportedly sent Choate a letter by regular mail on May 15, 2007, advising her that the case was set for trial on July 9, 2007. Choate, however, did not appear. CAFH did appear, and its general manager, John Oldner, testified to events leading up to the case and the amount of damages claimed. According to Oldner, the interest on the construction loan had accrued to the point that CAFH now sought $104,965.88 from Choate. The court found in favor of CAFH and entered judgment for that amount, plus attorney fees, on July 18, 2007. The court ruled that CAFH could sell the house and either remit any excess to Choate or look to Choate for the deficiency if the sales price did not cover the judgment.”
However, Choate successfully argued that she did not receive notice of the trial. A new trial was ordered, and the outcome was quite different. “On June 6, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment for Choate, ruling that the house was not in substantial compliance with the parties’ contract and that the contract should be rescinded. The court found that the house suffered from numerous construction defects, that the contract contemplated a slab rather than a concrete-pier foundation, and that CAFH ignored Choate’s complaints that the house was facing the wrong way. The judgment directed CAFH to hold Choate harmless on the construction loan, to deed Choate’s two acres back to her, and to remove the house from Choate’s property.”
The Court of Appeals “found that Choate would be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the septic systems and utility lines that CAFH installed on her land. The court therefore awarded $5340 to CAFH as a quantum-meruit recovery for the value of that work. CAFH contends that the award is not sufficient, but we see no clear error.” In the end, the Court of Appeals provided this reason for declining to reverse the trial court’s decision: “The court in this case apparently concluded that the house constructed by CAFH was so fundamentally at odds with Choate’s contractual expectations that she was not unjustly enriched and should simply be, as nearly as possible, returned to the status quo ante. Accordingly, the court ordered the house removed from her property and permitted CAFH to either relocate the house or salvage the house’s materials and unused appliances. We decline to reverse the court’s weighing of the equities in this manner.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.
May 30, 2018 —
Erinn Contreras & Joy O. Siu - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogOn May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c).
Reprinted courtesy of
Erinn Contreras, Sheppard Mullin and
Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin
Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property
March 30, 2016 —
Charles S. Krolikowski – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPFiling a lawsuit against a government entity can be a daunting task given the complexities of tort claims requirements and governmental immunities. A recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Pacific Shores Property Owners Association v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, Case No. C07020 (Jan. 20, 2016), provided welcome clarification as to the proper legal standard for an inverse condemnation action based upon activities of a government entity which cause water damage to private property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Charles S. Krolikowski, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPMr. Krolikowski may be contacted at
charles.krolikowski@ndlf.com
No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim
July 02, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurers, finding there was no coverage for the additional insured on a construction defect claim. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Walsh Construction. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10285 (7th Cir. April 29, 2024).
The City of Chicago hired Walsh Construction Company as general contractor for the Facade and Circulation Enhancement (FACE) project at O'Hare International Airport. The FACE project involved building and installing a new canopy for Terminals 1, 2 and 3. The project also called for the construction of a steel and glass curtain wall that would be integrated with the curtain wall at Terminals 2 and 3. Walsh contracted with Carlo Steel Corporation to manufacture the steel and curtain wall. Carlo, in turn, subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to manufacture and install the steel elements of the wall, which included steel columns, hammer heads and box girders. The subcontract between Carlo and LB Steel included an indemnity provision that required LB Steel to indemnify Carlo and Walsh for any property damage resulting from LB Steel's negligent performance.
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
First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit
October 24, 2023 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp., the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an insurer’s “insupportable” defense that the insured company had breached its duty to cooperate by refusing the insurer’s request for an examination under oath of the company’s president. The decision is a reminder that, while examinations under oath can be effective tools to allow the insurer to properly investigate a claim, an insured’s duty to cooperate is not boundless and does not demand attendance at examinations that are not reasonably requested.
Background
BAS Holding involves the destruction of a landmark building in Boston by an arsonist. The owner, BAS Holding Corporation, submitted an insurance claim to its property insurer to recover insurance proceeds for the damage to the building. The insurer investigated the claim to determine whether the damage to the building was covered and issued a reservation of rights letter suggesting that the policy may not provide coverage for the fire. As part of its investigation, the insurer requested an examination under oath as a condition to coverage under the policy, which led to BAS presenting the property’s operations coordinator for an interview. Shortly after examining the operations coordinator, the insurer sought another examination of BAS’s president and owner, as well as five other employees. In response, BAS questioned whether the additional examinations were “reasonably required” and said that it would consider the requests if the insurer could explain why they were necessary.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy
April 15, 2015 —
Marc S. Casarino – White and Williams LLPGuided by federal case law, on March 31, 2015 a Delaware state court held for the first time in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Services LLC that a builder’s poor workmanship is not an occurrence for which the builder’s insurance policy affords coverage. In the underlying case giving rise to the coverage dispute, a homeowner alleged that a builder deviated from approved building plans, used inadequate materials, improperly installed materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that a home was properly constructed. The homeowner sued the builder under theories of negligence, negligence per se, and fraud. The insurer denied the builder’s request for defense and indemnification for the homeowner’s claims, citing in part that the allegations of defective workmanship did not qualify as an “occurrence” as defined by the builder’s insurance policy.
The builder did not dispute that the underlying complaint alleged defective workmanship. However, the builder asserted that because it had not yet been proven that its work was defective, the insurer had prematurely denied coverage. The court properly rejected the builder’s argument, and reiterated that under Delaware law the court must compare the allegations of the complaint to the insurance policy terms to make a coverage determination. Whether the complaint’s allegations are ultimately meritorious is irrelevant to the initial coverage determination according to the court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLPMr. Casarino may be contacted at
casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com
Virginia General Assembly Tweaks Pay-if-Paid Ban
April 03, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsLast year, the Virginia General Assembly passed into law a ban on the so-called pay-if-paid clauses, effective January 1, 2023. I shared my thoughts and concerns with the legislation as drafted at the time of its passage. During this most recent legislative session, and among some other construction-related bills, the General Assembly sought to clarify its past enactment.
The enrolled bill fills in certain gaps in the law as follows:
- For both private and public contracts, the General Contractor, if it has good reason to withhold any payment, now has a maximum of 50 days from receipt of a proper invoice to notify its subcontractor of the reason for the withholding, including the contractual noncompliance, the amount to be withheld, and the lower-tier subcontractor responsible for the contractual noncompliance.
- For private contracts, the Owner now has 45 days in which to provide any written notice of intention to withhold payment. This notice must include the specific contractual non-compliance and the dollar amount to be withheld. NB- Owners do not need to specify the subcontractor responsible for the non-compliance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
