Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts
October 21, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Rural Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lester Bldgs., LLC 2019 WI 70, 2019 Wisc. LEXIS 272, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered whether a subrogation waiver clause in a construction contract between the defendant and the plaintiff’s insured violated Wisconsin statute § 895.447, which prohibits limitations of tort liability in construction contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the waiver clause did not violate the statute because it merely shifted the responsibility for the payment of damages to the defendant’s insurance company. The waiver clause did not limit or eliminate the defendant’s tort liability. This case establishes that while
§ 895.447 prohibits construction contracts from limiting tort liability, a subrogation waiver clause that merely shifts responsibility for the payment of damages from a tortfeasor to an insurer does not violate the statute and, thus, is enforceable.
In Rural Mutual, the plaintiff’s insured, Jim Herman, Inc. (Herman), entered into a contract with Lester Buildings, LLC (Lester) to design and construct a barn on Herman’s property. The contract included a provision that stated the following:
Both parties waive all rights against each other and any of their respective contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of any tier and any design professional engaged with respect to the Project, for recovery of any damages caused by casualty of other perils to the extent covered by property insurance applicable to the Work or the Project, except such rights as they have to the proceeds of such property insurance and to the extent necessary to recover amounts relating to deductibles of self-insured retentions applicable to insured losses. . . . This waiver of subrogation shall be effective notwithstanding allegations of fault, negligence, or indemnity obligation of any party seeking the benefit or production [sic] of such waiver.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon
May 01, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j.
Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs.
Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit.
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
Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?
December 21, 2016 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental ConditionsIn early September a Texas jury awarded a janitorial $5.3 million against the local chapter of the SEIU. The janitorial firm claimed that the SEIU damaged its reputation and caused it damages when it spread false, defamatory, and disparaging stories about the firm. Specifically, the janitorial firm claimed that the SEIU told the janitorial firms customer and potential customers that the firm “systematically failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, instructed janitors to work off the clock and had fired, threatened or refused to hire janitors who supported joining a union.” According to Law360.com, the union did this with “fliers, handbills, letters, emails, newsletters, speeches and postings on its website accused [the firm] of violating wage-and-hour and other labor laws.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions
December 16, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA.
The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum
In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss
July 16, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiDamage to the insureds' property caused by construction undertaken on the adjacent lot was covered under the insureds' property policy. Chubb Indem. Ins Co. v. 21 E. Cedar, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79906 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2014).
The insureds' home sustained damage contemporaneous with demolition, excavation, and construction taking place on a adjacent lot. Chubb paid benefits to the insureds for their loss, and then sought to recover as subrogee from the defendants who performed the construction.
The defendants argued there was no coverage under Chubb's policy. Faulty planning, construction or maintenance were excluded. An exception to the exclusion stated, however, "we do insure ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies." Defendants argued characterizing the damages as ensuing losses was purely semantic and self-serving, designed to involve the ensuing loss provision in order to protect Chubb's coverage determination. Chubb contended the exclusion applied only to the specific property being insured and not to a neighbor's property where work is being performed. Therefore, the faulty construction exclusion did not apply and the ensuing loss provision was triggered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What Sustainable Building Materials Will the Construction Industry Rely on in 2020?
March 23, 2020 —
Emily Folk - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry has had a successful year in developing new ways to make building sustainable and healthy for citizens. From recycled glass to cork, there's been an abundance of materials used for creating better structures. Many of these trends will roll over into 2020, but there's no doubt that a new crop of green solutions will surface.
Construction companies and contractors will benefit from keeping staying on the leading edge of new trends. Environmentalism is on everyone's minds, and consumers want sustainable structures for their attractiveness and eco-friendly properties. Implementing the next best resources puts engineers ahead of the competition while preserving the planet.
The Benefits of Sustainable Construction
Eco-friendly buildings offer numerous benefits to their builders and owners. They generate less waste, require less energy and output less carbon dioxide, making the Earth cleaner. Because they consist of high-quality materials, they help building owners save money on maintenance and upkeep. These funds can go toward other necessary expenses, such as purchasing inventory or implementing upgrades for tenants.
Reprinted courtesy of
Emily Folk, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas
October 01, 2014 —
Hui-yong Yu – BloombergSan Jose, California, and Dallas led the U.S. in office-rent increases in the third quarter as cities benefiting from growth in the technology and energy industries outperformed the gradual national recovery.
Rents after any landlord discounts, known as effective rents, climbed 6.7 percent from a year earlier in San Jose, compared with the U.S. average increase of 2.6 percent, property researcher Reis Inc. (REIS) said. Dallas rents rose 5.2 percent, followed by San Francisco’s 5.1 percent gain, Houston’s 4.4 percent increase and New York’s 3.9 percent advance.
The national sluggishness in the office market’s growth is being bucked by parts of Northern California and Texas, where large bases of technology or energy workers drive demand for space, Reis said. Throughout the U.S., increases in office occupancies show that the market “is in the midst of a recovery,” according to the New York-based company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergHui-yong Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
