HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!
October 18, 2021 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationI remember it (almost) like it was yesterday. It was September of 2001, and I was a third-year associate at Long & Jaudon, practicing with the construction litigation group. After a long weekend away, I received word that the firm had just announced that it would cease providing legal services. Long & Jaudon, which formed in 1967, had been a stalwart of Colorado’s defense bar, counting among its number some of the finest and most well-respected defense attorneys in the state. To learn that the firm would be shutting its doors was devastating. I would be out of a job.
Soon after L&J’s announcement, Dave Higgins, one of that firm’s senior partners, inquired as to whether I would be interested in starting a new firm focused on supporting Colorado’s construction industry and its insurers. Instead of riding into the sunset of retirement, Dave wanted to leave a legacy. That legacy is Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. Shortly after the sprout of the idea, I spent an afternoon at a picnic table in Cheesman Park with Dave Higgins, Steve Hopkins, and Sheri Roswell, sketching out an idea for a new law firm. Twenty years later, HHMR is still here, still serving Colorado’s construction industry and its insurers, and still embodying the principles of service and stewardship upon which the firm was founded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense
March 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiReversing its prior decision, the New York Court of Appeals held that the insurer could raise policy exclusions regarding its duty to indemnify after it incorrectly denied its duty to defend. K2 Invest. Group, LLC v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 201 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2014).
The insured was sued for legal malpractice. His insurer, American Guarantee, refused to defend and a default judgment was entered. The insured assigned his rights against American Guarantee to the plaintiffs. When the underlying plaintiffs sued, American Guarantee said coverage was barred by two exclusions.
In a previous decision, K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. Am Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 21 NY 3d 284, the court held that American Guarantee's breach of its duty to defend prevented it from relying on policy exclusions. This, however, contradicted another case issued by the court, Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y 2d 419 (1985).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured
January 15, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Amer. v. Engel Insulation, Inc. (No. C085753, filed 11/30/18), a California appeals court held that an insurer may not file its own action to assert claims solely as a subrogee of a suspended corporation, where the corporation could not otherwise assert the claims on its own behalf.
In Engel, a homeowners association filed a construction defect action against the developer, Westlake. Travelers defended Westlake as an additional insured on the policy of a subcontractor. After the case settled, Travelers brought a subrogation action against another subcontractor for contribution to the defense costs. However, Westlake had its corporate status suspended for failure to pay taxes, and the subcontractor moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract
July 19, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.
Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.
When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.
The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?
September 21, 2020 —
Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Ibarra v. Gastelum, 2020 WL 4218020 (7/23/20), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – in a tenant’s personal injury claim against the landlord – a landlord’s violation of the Arizona Landlord-Tenant Act constituted negligence per se. The tenant alleged he was injured by stubbing his toe on a crack in the floor. The tenant alleged that he had made repeated demands that the landlord repair the crack. The statute required the landlord to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. The tenant argued that a violation of the statute constituted negligence per se, meaning that the violation of the statute satisfied (as a matter of law) the first two elements of a negligence claim – duty and breach of duty. The tenant requested a negligence per se jury instruction. The trial court declined that request and refused to give the requested instruction. The tenant lost the jury trial and appealed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City
July 05, 2021 —
Caroline A. Harcourt, Natalie S. Starkman & Nika Bederman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a previous post, we described how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, 2019 (the CMA, or Local Laws 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 147 enacted in 2019) was passed with the goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050 (as against a 2005 baseline as provided for in item 3 of Local Law 97). It is the most ambitious building emissions law to be enacted by any city in the world. The CMA impacts “Covered Buildings” (described below) and, besides contemplating the retrofitting of Covered Buildings to achieve energy efficiency and establishing a monitoring program for Covered Buildings, the CMA contemplates compliance by means of the purchase of carbon offset credits or renewable energy. (Note the new NYC Accelerator program, launched in 2012 by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, provides guidance regarding energy-efficient upgrades to properties and emission reductions.)
Pursuant to the CMA:
- Beginning in 2024, Covered Buildings will have to meet the first emission targets, which are calculated by multiplying the gross floor area of each Covered Building by the occupancy classification as set forth in Local Law 97; and
- In 2025, owners of Covered Buildings will need to establish compliance by submitting a report establishing such compliance (prepared by a certified design professional) to the newly created Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline A. Harcourt, PillsburyMs. Harcourt may be contacted at
caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com
Lucky No. 7: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Pro-Policyholder Decision Regarding Additional Insured Coverage for Upstream Parties
November 02, 2020 —
Daniela Aguila - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc,1 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a subcontractor’s insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the project owner’s insurer for damages associated with the subcontractor's employee's personal injury lawsuit where the underlying complaint alleged negligence by the additional insureds. The case cements the notion that under Illinois law, one can significantly benefit from the facts presented in third party complaints as a basis for additional insured coverage.
Rockwell Properties (“Rockwell”) was the project owner, along with Prairie Management & Development (“Prairie”), the general contractor, on a construction project in Chicago. Prairie subcontracted HVAC services to TDH Mechanical (“TDH”). When an employee of TDH Mechanical sustained serious injuries performing work at a construction site, a suit was lodged against Rockwell and Prairie in state court. The lawsuit did not bring any claims against TDH but instead alleged that both Rockwell and Prairie had negligently failed to supervise the subcontractors’ work on-site, thus contributing to the worker’s injuries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniela Aguila, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Aguila may be contacted at
dag@sdvlaw.com
New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues
January 21, 2019 —
Paul Briganti - White and WilliamsOn November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018).
First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Briganti, White and WilliamsMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
