Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works
January 16, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverRecent decisions by the Seventh Circuit and the Eight Circuit have addressed the scope of protection afforded to architectural works under copyright law. The Seventh Circuit case of Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., 994 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2021), took a somewhat narrow view of the copyright protection afforded to the design of an “affordable, multipurpose, suburban, single-family home.” In Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., 9 F.4th 803 (8th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2888, 213 L. Ed. 2d 1103 (2022) the Eight Circuit held that the publication of floor plans of a house in a real estate listing was not protected from claims of copyright infringement.
Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Constr., Inc., involved a plaintiff that the court described as holding registered copyrights in thousands of floor plans for suburban, single-family homes that are basic schematic designs, largely conceptual in nature, and depict layouts for one- and two-story single-family homes that include the typical rooms: a kitchen, a dining area, a great room, a few bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry area, a garage, stairs, assorted closets, etc. The court described the plaintiff as a “copyright troll” and noted that litigation proceeds had become the principal revenue stream for the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued a contractor and related businesses contending hat the defendants had infringed plaintiff’s copyrighted floor plans.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact
December 16, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe appellate court found that the insurer's quote created an issue of fact on whether loss caused by a computer hacker would be covered. Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 355 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2019).
The insureds, Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC ("LLC's") discovered that their bank accounts had been hacked and over $78,000 stolen. They submitted claims to their insurer, Cincinnati. Coverage was denied, and the LLCs filed suit. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati.
The "Forgery or Alternation" coverage applied to losses resulting directly from the "'forgery' or alteration of checks, drafts, promissory notes, or similar written promises, order or directions to pay a sum of money." "Forgery" was defined as "the signing of the name of another person or organization with the intent to deceive." The LLCs did not cite any evidence that the hacker "signed" anything, let alone that they signed "the name of another person or organization."
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
Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy
February 22, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you have read prior articles (see
here and
here as an example), then you know that when it comes to first-party property insurance policies, an insured must comply with post-loss obligations in the policy. Failure to comply with a post-loss obligation gives the insurer the argument that the insured materially breached the policy and, therefore, forfeited rights to coverage. Naturally, this is avoidable by ensuring post-loss obligations are complied with, ideally under the guidance of counsel and qualified public adjusters to ensure your rights are being preserved and maximized.
[W]hen an insurer has alleged, as an affirmative defense to coverage, and thereafter has subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer.
Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Horne, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D201b (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) quoting American Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So.3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
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
Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.
After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.
KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.
Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”
As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.
While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”
ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”
In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Sues Yelp Reviewer for Defamation
February 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFContractor Christopher Dietz sued Jane Perez, a Virginia homeowner who “wrote a pair of scathing reviews of his services” on Yelp, according to Yahoo Finance. Dietz sued for “defamation and” sought “$750,000 in damages.”
The Fairfax, Virginia jury did find the reviews to be defamatory, but they also “found that Dietz had defamed her as well when he responded to her negative reviews with accusations of his own.” The jury decided that “neither deserved to recoup damages.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”
February 05, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyThe general contractor on a New Orleans condominium construction project obtained a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program/CCIP policy or "Wrap-Up" policy for the job.
An accident occurred on the job when a construction elevator/hoist fell, injuring several workers. The elevator/hoist was provided by a subcontractor, pursuant to a rental agreement and related subcontract with the general contractor. Contained within the subcontract was a provision which states that the general contractor "has arranged for the Project to be insured under a controlled insurance program (the "CCIP" or "WrapUp"),” and that the CCIP shall provide "commercial general liability insurance and excess liability insurance, in connection with the performance of the Work at the Project site."
A third-party administrator for the wrap-up policy had been in communication with the subcontractor prior to the commencement of the work, “specifically advising that insurance coverage was not automatic” and providing the subcontractor with an enrollment form for the CCIP. Ultimately, the subcontractor “declined to comply with the request,” stating that the subcontractor would "not participate in paying any wrap insurance premiums" – because the subcontractor had its own insurance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens
February 18, 2020 —
Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter - Construction ExecutiveThere may be tension between the enforcement of statutory mechanic’s lien claims when a contractual dispute resolution provision calls for arbitration. Once the parties are in arbitration, it may not be clear whether the arbitrator has authority to make factual determinations regarding amount and validity of mechanic’s liens, and whether courts are bound by these determinations. This uncertainty stems from the fact that in most states a mechanic’s lien can only be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, many mechanic’s liens statutes define foreclosure as a “judicial process,” and courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to issue orders foreclosing on real property1.
The risk for contractors and owners is that they will spend time and money re-litigating factual issues related to proving elements of a mechanic’s lien claim, including the proper lien amount, timeliness and other prerequisites. Without a clear understanding of what issues and elements are arbitrable, the parties run the risk that an arbitrator will rule on certain elements only to find out during post-arbitration lien foreclosure proceedings that the arbitrator lacked authority to make determinations on those elements. Questions therefore arise whether a court will enforce the arbitrator’s determinations and whether the parties must relitigate mechanic’s lien issues creating a further risk of inconsistent rulings.
These risks can be minimized through arbitration provisions which address these issues, express requests in arbitration demands and by ensuring that arbitration awards contain explicit determinations of mechanic’s liens issues.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Potter may be contacted at tpotter@coxcastle.com
Mr. Campbell may be contacted at rcampbell@coxcastle.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Charges in Kansas Water Park Death
March 28, 2018 —
David Suggs - CDJ STAFFCaleb Schwab, a 10-year old boy was killed by decapitation on a water slide at a Kansas City water park, Schlitterbahn in 2016. Thirteen other people had suffered injuries on the ride prior to Caleb’s death ranging in severity from broken toes to concussions. Schlitterbahn employees have since claimed that park officials covered up past occurrences of water slide injuries.
Three people have been indicted in this case according to a CNN report by Marlena Baldacci, Sheena Jones and Hollie Silverman. Jeffrey Henry, the co-owner of the Schlitterbahn water park, Tyler Austin Miles, the park’s former director of operations and John Schooley.
Charges include second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated battery and aggravated child endangerment. Caleb suffered a fatal injury when the raft that he and the two women who were riding with him became airborne and contacted the netting attached overhead.
Investigators have found maintenance issues and ride design flaws that violate safety standards leading to lack of prevention of rafts becoming airborne during the ride. Caleb’s family will receive nearly $20 million in the settlement. Caleb’s father Scott, released a statement about placing full trust in the Attorney General Derek Schmidt who is presiding over the investigation and indictments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
