New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose
September 07, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Starting July 1st of this year, Iowa homeowners now have only ten years to file a claim against the builder instead of the fifteen years that was allowed previously, reported WZAD 8 News. Furthermore, commercial property owners will only have eight years to file their suits.
Scott Webster, Vice President of the Quad Cities Builders and Re-modelers Association, told WZAD 8 News that insurance companies played a part in the change: “[I]nsurance companies were saying, Iowa is at such a long period of time for any kind of defect, that may be hard to prove whether the builder even did it or the homeowner modified the house.”
However, Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General, disagreed with the change in policy: “We think that it’s unfair to consumers, the defects in buildings and commercial buildings too, can show up very easily between eight and fifteen years out.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Apartment Investors Turn to Suburbs After Crowding Cities
March 12, 2015 —
Nadja Brandt and Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Real estate investor Robert Hart pulled into the lot of a 400-unit apartment community in a San Diego suburb last month, prepared to pay up for the recently completed project on a quiet residential street. A competitor from a publicly traded landlord was already there, he said.
“It was on the one hand reassuring to know that we were both chasing the same opportunity,” said Hart, president and chief executive officer of closely held TruAmerica Multifamily. “On the other hand, it reinforced my opinion that large institutional real estate investors will be chasing yield far beyond the urban core.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg and
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net
Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Senate Committee Approves Construction Defect Bill
March 19, 2015 —
Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic WittLate last night, the Colorado Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee voted to refer
SB 15-177 to the committee of the whole. The vote followed nearly seven hours of testimony from those in favor of construction defect legislation and those opposed.
As I have
previously discussed, the bill sponsors have argued that their measure will encourage the construction of more affordable housing by giving builders de facto immunity for claims of defective workmanship and property damage in common interest communities. The bill achieves this by establishing difficult voting and disclosure requirements for homeowner associations and requiring costly, private arbitration of any disputes that can overcome the procedural hurdles. During the recent hearing, proponents echoed these statements and testified that insulating homebuilders from claims would lower home prices and rents by increasing the supply of cheaply-built condominiums.
Opponents questioned whether the bill contained any provisions that would actually help the affordable housing market. They also argued that it was improper for the legislature to shift the cost of fixing construction defects onto those homeowners who can least afford to pay for necessary repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law FirmMr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com
Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act
January 10, 2018 —
Adam E. Lang - Real Estate Litigation BlogArizona’s Constitution gives electors in cities, towns, and counties the ability to refer legislation that was enacted by their local elected officials to the ballot for popular vote. Ariz. Const. art. IV, Pt. 1 § 1(8). But only legislative acts are referable; administrative acts are not. In general, a legislative act makes new law and creates policy, is permanent in nature, and is generally applied. On the other hand, an administrative act is one that executes and implements a law already in place. Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 485, 489-90, 821 P.2d 146, 150-51 (1991).
For more than fifty years, Arizona courts have been clear: zoning and rezoning ordinances are legislative acts and therefore referable to popular vote. City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 17, 363 P.2d 607, 609 (1961) (holding that “what constitutes an appropriate zone is primarily for the legislature”); Fritz v. City of Kingman, 191 Ariz 432, 432, 957 P.2d 337, 337 (1998) (noting “we reaffirm our view that zoning decisions are legislative matters subject to referendum”); Pioneer Trust Co. of Arizona v. Pima Cty., 168 Ariz. 61, 64–65, 811 P.2d 22, 25–26 (1991) (holding “that, in Arizona, zoning decisions are legislative acts subject to referendum” and that even a “conditional approval of . . . rezoning was a legislative act”); Cottonwood Dev. v. Foothills Area Coal. of Tucson, Inc., 134 Ariz. 46, 653 P.2d 694 (1982) (analyzing whether zoning referendum complied with statutory requirements); Wait v. City of Scottsdale, 127 Ariz. 107, 108, 618 P.2d 601, 602 (1980) (noting “that the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances constitute legislative action”); City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 65, 537 P.2d 934, 935 (1975) (“The matter of zoning is appropriately one for the legislative branch of government.”); Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai Cty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 108 Ariz. 449, 452, 501 P.2d 391, 394 (1972) (denying an attempt to enjoin referendum on county’s zoning decision).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adam E. Lang, Snell & WilmerMr. Lang may be contacted at
alang@swlaw.com
New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death
August 19, 2015 —
Chris Dolmetsch & David M. Levitt – BloombergNew York’s building boom has spurred the formation of a task force to probe corruption in the construction industry.
The group of prosecutors and inspectors plan to go after companies that ignore or hide safety violations or commit other crimes including bid rigging and extortion.
The formation of the task force was announced the same day two men and their companies were indicted for causing a worker’s death in April by failing to address repeated warnings about safety at a construction site in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg and
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Good and Bad News on Construction Employment
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe construction industry hit a two-year high in January, with 21,000 jobs added that month. The mild winter is assumed to have helped. According to the General Contractors of America, the construction industry currently employs about 5.57 million people. This is a 21 percent gain over January 2010. Ken Simonson, the chief economist of GCA, noted that “the unemployment rate in construction is still double that of the overall economy.” He said it was not currently clear if “the recent job growth reflects a sustained pickup or merely acceleration of homebuilding and highway projects that normally halt when the ground freezes in December and January.”
Stephen Sandherr, the chief executive officer of the GCA, said that the federal government had to make infrastructure funding a top priority. “Without adequate long-term funding for infrastructure, competitive tax rates and fewer costly regulatory hurdles, the construction industry may lose some of the jobs it gained in the last year.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Appeals Court Overruled Insured as Additional Insured on Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy
April 02, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFScott R. Murphy and Clifford J. Shapiro of Barnes & Thornburg LLP in the publication National Law Review analyzed the findings of the Mississippi case Carl E. Woodward, LLC v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance: “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overruled the district court’s determination that a general contractor was insured as an additional insured on its subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy for claims arising out of the allegedly defective work performed by the subcontractor.”
“This case underscores the fact that many standard policy forms do not include completed operations coverage for additional insureds,” Murphy and Shapiro declared. “Owners and contractors that desire to have such coverage therefore need to check their contracts to be make sure the contract language requires completed operations coverage for additional insureds, and they also need to obtain and review the actual additional insured endorsement contained in their subcontractors’ insurance policies before work commences to make sure that the required completed operations insurance coverage is provided.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
