No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down
December 02, 2015 —
Yas Omidi – California Construction Law Blog“No Escape” is a 2015 action movie starring Pierce Brosnan and Owen Wilson (that’s right, Owen Wilson) and which the folks at rogerebert.com described as “a dreadful…would-be thriller” and “low-grade trash.”
It’s also, in short, the California Court of Appeal’s answer to a primary insurer’s recent bid to escape its duty to defend pursuant to an “other insurance” clause in a CGL policy in Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District (October 23, 2015).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yas Omidi, California Construction Law BlogMs. Omidi may be contacted at
yomidi@wendel.com
M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic
April 06, 2020 —
Lori Smith & Patrick Devine - White and Williams Taking Care of Business BlogIncreasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents.
Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Smith, White and Williams and
Patrick Devine, White and Williams
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause
January 05, 2017 —
Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPOn October 27, 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals determined whether the Dormancy Statute, which bars the enforcement of judgments after seven years, applied to a lienholder’s action to foreclose its lien.
A property owner (“Owner”), contracted with a contractor Contractor (“Contractor”) to build a home in January 2006. Contractor purchased building materials from a supplier (“Supplier”). In September 2006, Contractor failed to pay for the materials, and Supplier filed a lien on Owner’s property in November 2006. Supplier filed a claim of lien and instituted a lien action against Contractor. In March 2007, a default judgment was entered in favor of Supplier for the lien amount.
It was not until November 2014 that Supplier sued Owner, seeking a declaration of a special lien in the amount of $14,655.65. The trial court granted Supplier’s motion for summary judgment and awarded Supplier a special lien in the amount of $14,655.65 plus $8,305 in accrued interest. Owner appealed, arguing that the lien was rendered unenforceable by the Dormancy Statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Reynolds may be contacted at
reynolds@ahclaw.com
Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens
August 04, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contract AdvisorYep, our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison specifically, Craig Martin, Construction Attorney Lamson Dugan & Murray LLPwere responsible for proposing the first mechanic’s lien laws in the United States. Mechanic’s liens were not a new concept when the first law was passed in the United States; France, Spain and other countries already had them. But, in England, where landownership was limited to the upper classes, the concept of giving a tradesman an interest in the land for his labors was a truly foreign concept.
The Early Years—Pre Mechanic Lien
In the 1700s, there was no right to a mechanic’s lien. The possession of land was never deemed to be changed by its improvement and the laborer or material supplier was held to have acquired no right of lien in the property. The only remedy the laborer or material supplier had was to bring an action against the land owner. If the laborer or material supplier obtained a judgment, he would acquire the lien of a judgment creditor. A Treatise on the law of Mechanics’ Liens on Real and Person Property, 1893.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative
September 07, 2017 —
Sanjo S. Shatley - Florida Construction Law NewsFlorida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of retroactive application of a construction subcontract on the basis of a merger clause in Don Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc.[1]
In the case, in late 2010, Don Facciobene, Inc. (“DFI”), a licensed general contractor, contracted with Digiacinto Holdings, LLC, an owner of a home built in 1905 in Melbourne, Florida, known as the Nannie Lee House or the Strawberry Mansion, to perform various renovations in preparation for a restaurant to be opened on the premises. One of the renovations included a new roof. DFI subcontracted the roofing work to Hough Roofing, Inc. (“HRI”), a licensed roofing subcontractor. In mid-March 2011, HRI submitted an estimate and proposed statement of work to DFI. DFI’s project manager signed HRI’s proposal on April 5, 2011, as well as an additional expanded proposal six days later. According to the proposals, payment was due on completion. HRI began work on the roof on April 15, 2011, without a signed subcontract. However, DFI and HRI ultimately executed a subcontract on June 8, 2011, even though HRI had mostly finished its work by the end of May.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sanjo S. Shatley, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Shatley may be contacted at
sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com
Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems
September 25, 2018 —
Robert A. James & Alexandra Brandt - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate BlogIt was already the case that in order to offer to install California residential solar energy systems, a contractor must be licensed by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) and must hold an appropriate specialty classification. Under AB 1070 enacted late last year (Chapter 662, Statutes of 2017), special consumer protections are being deployed for the benefit of homeowners. Those protections are steadily rolling out.
Step one is the requirement of new Business & Professions Code (B&P Code) Section 7169 that, as of January 1, 2019, a disclosure document must be provided to consumers prior to sale and included on page 1 of the sale contract. The initial version of this document, which was developed by the CSLB and endorsed on August 23, 2018 by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), is available here. The disclosure requirement doesn’t apply to systems included in new home construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury and
Alexandra Brandt, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at alexandra.brandt@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
To Bee or Not to Bee - CA Court Finds Denial of Coverage Based on Exclusion was Premature Where Facts had not been Judicially Determined
November 28, 2018 —
Philip B. Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.While I typically discuss cases concerning pollution, today I will change a few letters around and discuss pollination. The case, Unigard Insurance Co. et al. v. George Perry and Sons Inc. et al., asks whether there is coverage for a lawsuit brought against a commercial farm that is alleged to have killed off bee colonies used for pollination. The farm, owned by George Perry & Sons Inc. (“Perry”), allegedly used a pesticide that killed off the bee colonies that Perry had hired from Gary Mattes (“Mattes”) pursuant to an oral agreement. The bees, operating well outside of their weight class, were hired to pollinate Perry’s crops of watermelons and pumpkins. Interestingly, the bees would be brought to the farm in either large hives or “nukes,” which are smaller versions of hives.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at
pbw@sdvlaw.com
Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent
January 08, 2024 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy.
By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
