PulteGroup Fires Exec Accused of Defamation By Founder’s Heir
January 17, 2023 —
Patrick Clark - BloombergPulteGroup Inc. fired a senior executive for violating the company’s code of conduct two days after the grandson of the homebuilder’s founder sued the executive for alleged defamation.
The company, which is the third-largest US homebuilder, said in a statement Friday that it had terminated Brandon Jones after the results of an independent investigation. Jones had been slated to assume the role of chief operating officer in January.
Bill Pulte, 34, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday in Palm Beach County, Florida, alleging that Jones had used anonymous Twitter accounts to smear members of the Pulte family. The lawsuit accused the executive of impersonating a business journalist and making a false claim that Pulte manipulated his grandfather.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, Bloomberg
Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims
December 09, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn an insurance coverage action pending in the S.D.N.Y., Hunt Construction Group (Hunt) contends that Berkley Assurance Company wrongfully denied defense coverage for claims arising out of the renovation of Hard Rock Stadium (home to the Miami Dolphins and Miami Hurricanes football teams).
The stadium owner, South Florida Stadium LLC (SFS), hired Hunt to serve as the construction manager for the renovation project. Hunt subcontracted with Alberici Constructors Inc. (Alberici) to design and fabricate roof structures for the stadium.
Hunt and SFS sued Alberici over its work on the project. In March 2017, Alberici asserted counterclaims against Hunt and SFS. In May 2018, SFS sought defense and indemnification from Hunt with respect to Alberici’s coverage claims.
Hunt is insured under claims made and reported professional liability insurance policies issued by Berkley with policy periods from June 15, 2016 to June 15, 2017 (with an automatic extended reporting period through August 14, 2017) and from July 15, 2017 to June 15, 2018. Hunt notified Berkley of Alberici’s counterclaim on July 20, 2017 (within the extended reporting period of the 2016-2017 policy) and of SFS’s indemnity claim on June 5, 2018 (within the 2017-2018 policy period).
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words
October 11, 2017 —
Tom Sawyer - Engineering News-RecordA tech start-up recently announced that it has been granted seven U.S. patents for a system that applies a “deep learning” algorithm to examine corporate e-mail databases and flag those with message fields or attachments containing language that might increase risk for a company involved in a federal discrimination lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Sawyer, ENRMr. Sawyer may be contacted at
sawyert@enr.com
When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action
August 10, 2021 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Lawrence J. Bracken II & Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Andrews KurthA company faces two class action lawsuits—filed by different plaintiffs, complaining of different allegedly wrongful conduct, asserting different causes of action subject to different burdens of proof, and seeking different relief based on different time periods for the alleged harm. Those facts suggest the suits are not “fundamentally identical,” but that is what a Delaware Superior Court recently concluded in barring coverage for a policyholder seeking to recover for a suit the court deemed “related” to an earlier lawsuit first made outside the policy’s coverage period. First Solar Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. N20C-10-156 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2021). The decision, which is not on all fours with some of the authority upon which it relies, underscores the inherent unpredictability of “related” claim disputes and need for careful analysis of the policy language against the factual and legal bases of the underlying claims.
Underlying Shareholder Class Actions and D&O Claims
Shareholders of solar panel manufacturer First Solar sued the company and its directors and officers in a class action lawsuit (the “Smilovits Action”) for the class period April 2008 to February 2012. The Smilovits Action asserted federal securities violations arising from First Solar’s alleged misrepresentations about the company’s business strategies, product design, financial strength, and ability to offer solar electricity at comparable rates to conventional energy producers (i.e., achieving “grid parity”), artificially inflated stock price, insider trading, manipulation of solar power metrics, and violations of GAAP accounting standards. First Solar submitted a claim to its D&O insurer, National Union, which provided coverage for the Smilovits Action and exhausted the policy.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)
October 18, 2021 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogReal estate tokenization and smart home technology continue to grow, negotiations surrounding the bipartisan infrastructure bill stall its passing, artificial intelligence is poised to transform the construction industry, and more.
- Contra Global leverages real estate tokenization, the process of creating tokens on the Blockchain and assigning them to real estate properties that already exist or are under construction, to remove traditionally high barriers to investment entry as well as intermediary fees in the industry. (Navid Ladani, Yahoo Finance)
- Following the 2-week closure of the construction industry after protests turned violent over vaccine mandates, the Victorian government announced its reopening with up to 25 percent capacity of workers and new vaccination rules. (ABC News)
- Though the construction industry has traditionally relied heavily on human experience and expertise to complete projects, the industry is rapidly adopting digital solutions to adapt to chronic labor shortages, the need for sustainable solutions, and supply-chain disruptions. (Tom Taulli, Forbes)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Be Aware of Two New Statutes that Became Effective May 1, 2021
May 24, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOn May 1, 2021, two new statutes that passed in 2020 and that directly affect construction became effective. I’ve used the AGC-VA description of the bills and encourage you to read the statutes in full.
Prevailing Wage
Starting May 1, 2021, Virginia’s new prevailing wage statute takes effect. This statute requires any contractor bidding on state procurement jobs to pay prevailing wages for work completed on the project. Further, localities and some institutes of higher education have the option to require prevailing wages on jobs. This may have the effect of significantly raising the cost of these jobs and creating market incentives which make it very difficult for many contractors to bid on this type of work, and is consistent with work performed on VDOT and federal projects. The law further requires certified payroll for any prevailing wage job and the consequence for not following the statute includes debarment.
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
Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor
February 10, 2020 —
Kevin Sullivan - Traub LiebermanNationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable.
In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Sullivan, Traub LiebermanMr. Sullivan may be contacted at
ksullivan@tlsslaw.com
