Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects
November 23, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe 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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women
February 22, 2018 —
Laura Parsons - CDJ STAFFWomen make up 47 percent of the total U.S. workforce yet they only hold approximately 9 percent of construction jobs nationwide. Because of this minority, women endure health and safety issues that men usually don’t, according to Safety.BLR.com’s article “OSHA renews alliance to protect women in construction.”
The main areas that women face problems in the construction industry are healthy, safety and workplace culture. Women are potentially exposed to sexual harassment, demeaning remarks, and bodily assaults. Most of personal protective equipment (PPE) and tools are made for the typical male body to use and operate and are too heavy or oversized for many women.
The National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC) partnered with OSHA in 2013 and just renewed their alliance aiming to improve upon workplace intimidation and violence as well as sanitation and PPE. The partnership is committed “to providing NAWIC members and others with information, guidance, and access to training resources that will help them protect the health and safety of workers, and understand the rights of workers and the responsibilities of employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).” This will be achieved by the implementation of national rules, laws, and standards as well as the circulation of preventative information.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial
February 21, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogLiability insurance typically affords broad defense coverage. But insurers sometimes reserve their right to challenge the insured’s right to a defense, or even outright terminate the defense. When this occurs after the insurer has been in exclusive control of the defense, some courts recognize that the consequences can be catastrophic for the insured defendant. Insurers, therefore, may be estopped from denying coverage where doing so will prejudice the insured. This is exactly what transpired in RLI Ins. Co. v. AST Engineering Corp., No. 20-214 (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2022), where the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that an insurer’s attempt to withdraw the defense it had provided to its insured for three years would prejudice the insured.
In AST Engineering, RLI sought a declaration that it did not have to defend the insured, AST, in two underlying cases in which AST was sued as a third-party defendant. The underlying cases concerned a construction project in New York City for which AST provided engineering drawings on October 28, 2012.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.
October 23, 2012 —
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellGene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.
In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.
Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMetrostudy surveyed the Chicago, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis/St. Paul markets and found an increase in subdivisions—“[n]ot a re-hashing of existing communities or a re-configuring of existing developments, but new land, being newly developed,” according to Builder magazine.
Builder reported that in 2010 only 383 new lots were delivered to the Chicago market, but in just the first six months of 2014, 1,500 new lots have been delivered. Furthermore, the Twin Cities had a total of 964 lots delivered in 2010. “In 2013, there were 3,683 new lot deliveries. Indianapolis has seen a total of 1,400 new lots delivered in the first six months of 2014, compared to just 650 through the first half of 2010.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion
April 15, 2015 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergBuilders FirstSource Inc., a Dallas-based maker of materials for new homes, rose the most on record after saying it agreed to buy competitor ProBuild Holdings LLC for $1.63 billion.
ProBuild, based in Denver, operates about 400 lumber and building product distribution, manufacturing and assembly centers serving 40 U.S. states, according to a statement Monday. The companies had 2014 combined revenue of $6.1 billion.
Builders FirstSource surged 68 percent to $11.57. It was the biggest one-day gain ever for the shares, which began trading in June 2005.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses
October 21, 2024 —
Edward M. Koch & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLPSeeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies.
While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and
Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
