CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

September 14, 2017 — Gary Barrera - California Construction Law Blog
In a victory for additional insureds, a California appeals court held, in Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D070478 (filed 8/30/17), that an insurer’s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase “ongoing operations” in an additional insured endorsement, was improper. Additionally, an insurer wishing to limit coverage under an additional insured endorsement to ongoing operations must do so via clear and explicit language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gary Barrera, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Barrera may be contacted at gbarrera@wendel.com

---

Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

December 10, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday, we welcome Tara L. Chadbourn. Tara is an attorney with ReavesColey PLLC in Chesapeake, VA, where she concentrates her practice on construction law, litigation and commercial litigation. Tara counsels owners, contractors, subcontractors and materials suppliers in various government and commercial construction matters. Tara can be reached at tara.chadbourn@reavescoley.com. You may have experienced and have certainly heard of the scenario in which a contractor waits to address a claim as part of project closeout, only to realize the applicable deadline has already passed. While there may have been discussions about claims during the course of the project, contractors cannot rely upon oral conversations about outstanding claims. Instead, contractors must be vigilant in satisfying notice requirements and preserving claims. While entitlement must still be proven, a contractor’s chances of recovery increase greatly if the contractor abides by notice requirements and consciously preserves claims in the following ways. Contractors Must Acquaint Themselves with Contractual Notice Provisions: Many prime and subcontract agreements contain stringent notice provisions that require the contractor to give notice within a certain time period or else the claim is expressly waived. The deadline for notice is often only a few days after the occurrence giving rise to the claim or the contractor becoming aware of the claim. To avoid waiver, contractors must carefully review their contracts for provisions requiring notice of a claims for adjustment for a variety of situations to include unforeseen site conditions, trade sequencing changes, project delay or scope of work changes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

September 10, 2018 — William S. Bennett & Warsame Y. Hassan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace. In Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Keyspan Gas East Corporation (“Keyspan”) argued other insurers should cover the period when pollution property insurance was unavailable in the marketplace, according to their pro-rata share of coverage. 31 N.Y.3d 51 (2018). In a unanimous decision, the Court emphasized the Appellate Division’s prior ruling that stated, “spreading risk should not by itself serve as a legal basis for providing free insurance to an insured.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

---

Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

January 25, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In prior articles I have discussed that courts apply the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. A party that recovers an affirmative judgement is NOT the de facto prevailing party for purposes of an entitlement to attorney’s fees in a breach of contract action (or a construction lien foreclosure action). This was the issue in a recent appeal discussed here where the party that recovered an affirmative judgment on a breach of contract case was not deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. While the party prevailed on one of its claims, it did not prevail on others, and it recovered less than half of the damages it originally sought. The appellate court, affirming the trial court, held that the trial court has discretion to determine that the party that recovered an affirmative judgement was not the prevailing party entitled to its attorney’s fees under the signifiant issues test. This was not what the party was expecting when the attorney’s fees it expended far exceeded the judgment it recovered. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Richard H. Glucksman, Jon Turigliatto, and Kacey R. Riccomini of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger analyzed Transport and wrote, “The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
You can do a lot with a backhoe, but maybe not use it for bank robbery. The New York Daily News wasn’t clear on how many were involved, but described them as “a brazen crew of bandits.” They stole a backhoe from a construction site and used it to pry an ATM from a bank. When they couldn’t get the ATM open, they jumped into a black SUV and left the scene. The bandits were engaging in a sort of ATM spree. They did manage to open two ATMs, each holding more than $7,000 in cash. They were less successful at their use of heavy machinery. In an earlier heist, they used a tow truck to try to remove an ATM, but the chain snapped and the bank’s alarm rang. The Daily News quotes one former tow truck driver who said that it was “stupid to use a tow truck.” In her experience, “those chains snap at any time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

November 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court determined the general contractor was not covered for construction defects despite allegations of damage to personal property. Wesfield Ins. Co. v. West Van Buren, LLC, 59 N.E. 2d 877, (Ill. Ct. App. 2016). The developer constructed a condominium development in Chicago. The installation of the roof was contracted to Total Roofing. Total Roofing agreed to insure and indemnify the developer against liability for Total Roofing's work. Total Roofing obtained a CGL policy with Westfield Insurance Company listing the developer as an additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---