Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer
February 01, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted summary judgment to the insurer based upon an endorsement which barred coverage for injuries to employees. Northfield Ins. Co. v. Z&J Mgt. LLC, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10801 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 18, 2020).
Ravi Sooklal sued his employer, Z&J Management LLC (Z&J), for injuries at the job site. Northfield, who had issued a CGL policy to Z&L, denied coverage based upon two endorsements. The first was titled "Injury to Employees of Insureds" and the second was "Employers' Liability." Northfield sued for a declaratory judgment and now moved for summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation
November 01, 2022 —
Brian Poage - Construction ExecutiveRisk mitigation is a bigger part of managing construction projects than most people outside the industry realize. Construction is a risky business by nature.
However, with the right tools, contractors can protect their businesses from costly litigation and keep jobsites safer and more productive. Modern technology helps increase project visibility for internal and external stakeholders, helping them monitor risks and resolve potential issues as quickly as possible.
How does increased visibility reduce risk?
The most common causes of litigation in construction are quality issues, schedule delays and injuries. Each of these risks can be reduced with better communication and documentation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Poage, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/10/22)
August 29, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe Senate passes the Inflation Reduction Act, construction costs continue to rise across the U.S., commercial real estate advances the adoption of ESG strategies, and more.
- The recently-passed Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 leaves out the carried interest tax hike, much to the relief of real estate investors worldwide. (Taylor Driscoll, Bisnow)
- Commercial real estate continues to push forward ESG strategies, given the significant carbon footprints left by most office buildings. (Ted Jackson, CFO)
- “Space as a Service” tech company Neighbor, which re-purposes under-utilized real estate into storage for tenants, hits its stride in the post-pandemic landscape as the excess of unprofitable space rises. (The Real Deal)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court
December 26, 2022 —
Mason Fletcher & Ryan Sternoff - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn 2011, the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) contracted with Seattle Tunnel Partners, a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini (“STP”) to construct a tunnel (“SR 99 Tunnel”) to replace the dilapidated Alaska Way Viaduct. STP obtained a builder’s “all-risk” insurance policy (“Policy”) from Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and several other insurers (collectively, the “Insurers”) which insured against damage to both the project and the tunnel boring machine popularly known as Big Bertha (“Bertha”).
Bertha began excavating in July 2013 but broke down a few months later when the machine stopped working. Work did not resume on the project until December 2015. WSDOT and STP tendered insurance claims for the losses associated with the delays and breakdown of Bertha but the Insurers denied coverage. Thereafter, WSDOT and STP sued.
The Insurers moved the trial court for partial summary judgment to resolve some, but not all, of the coverage disputes. In a unanimous decision, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals, and held that insurance companies do not have to reimburse WSDOT and STP for costs accrued during a two-year Project delay, under certain provisions of the insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and
Ryan Sternoff, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at ryan.sternoff@acslawyers.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases
August 19, 2015 —
Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLPIn Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit.
In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLPMr. Mahoney may be contacted at
mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities
March 27, 2023 —
Garrett A. Smee & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn February 28, 2023, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, issued an opinion in Billauer v. Escobar-Eck (D079835), affirming the trial court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stemming from a public debate over a Church construction project.
The Appellant (Billauer) ran several social media sites as a “neighborhood activist.” The Respondent (Escobar-Eck) ran a land use and strategic planning firm in San Diego. The “All People’s Church” had hired Escobar-Eck’s company in 2019 to obtain City approval for a Church campus. During a Zoom presentation by Escobar-Eck to a Church planning group on November 11, 2020, Billauer, as a participant in the meeting sent a chat to Escobar-Eck stating: “I’m going to make sure you get sent back to where you came from.” Over the span of the next six months, from November 11, 2020 to April 8, 2021, Billauer continued the onslaught through a series of five posts on Instagram and Facebook, attacking Escobar-Eck. On December 10, 2020, Escobar-Eck fired back with a Twitter post to Billauer’s employer, Wells Fargo, labeling Billauer as a cyberbullying racist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Garrett A. Smee, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Smee may be contacted at gsmee@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”
Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.
Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”
One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”
As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”
Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.
Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.
The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect
November 04, 2019 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements.
The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes.
With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:
- The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
- The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
- A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
- Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
