Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case
January 17, 2014 —
Berkeley W. Mann, Jr. – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn an earlier blog post, I discussed the case of Triple Crown Observatory Village Assn., Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc., et al (2013 WL 5761028) because it presented the rare case where the Colorado Court of Appeals accepted an interlocutory appeal. Notably, the interlocutory appeal resulted from dismissal of the HOA case in which the trial judge directed the parties to arbitrate in lieu of a jury trial, under the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that governed the community. The Court of Appeals decided the case on its merits on November 7, 2013, and its decision can be found at 2013 WL 6502659. (Note: this presently unpublished opinion may be subject to further appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.)
The case resulted from an attempt by the HOA’s counsel to amend the mandatory arbitration provisions of the declarations before it filed suit. This amendment process took the form of soliciting signature votes of homeowners on a revocation resolution to repeal the specific provisions of the declarations that provided mandatory, binding arbitration as the sole remedy for disputes between the HOA and the developer and/or general contractor. The declarations required that 67% of homeowners vote in favor of amendment in order to modify the declarations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Berkeley W. Mann, Jr., Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Mann may be reached at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy
November 02, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product constitutes an “accident” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. In aligning itself with a growing number of jurisdictions, the Michigan Supreme Court answered, “yes.” In Skanska, a construction manager brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer seeking coverage as additional insured for the cost of repairs to correct faulty work performed by its subcontractor in renovation of medical center. In 2009, the construction manager hired MAP to install a steam boiler and related piping for the medical center’s heating system. MAP’s installation included several expansion joints, which it was later discovered, were installed backward. Significant damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system occurred as a result. The construction manager performed the work of repairing and replacing the damaged property to the tune of $1.4 million, and submitted a claim to MAP’s CGL insurer, Amerisure, seeking coverage as an additional insured.
Amerisure denied the claim contending that MAP’s defective construction was not a covered “occurrence” within the CGL policy. The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but did not define the term “accident.” The trial court looked to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369 (1990), which defined “accident” as “…a result which is not anticipated and…takes place without the insured’s foresight or expectation and without design or intentional causation on his part.” But, again citing Hawkeye, the trial court concluded that “[d]efective workmanship, standing alone, is not an occurrence within the meaning of a[ ] general liability insurance contract[;] an occurrence exists where the insured’s faulty work product damages the property of another.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors
March 01, 2011 —
Colorado Construction LitigationIn Dunn v. American Family Insurance, 09CA2173, 2010 WL 4791948 (Colo. App. Nov. 24, 2010), the Dunns reported a claim to American Family on their homeowners insurance policy after sewer and water backup caused sewage to flood their basement. American Family gave the Dunns contact information for a contractor (ICA) to remediate the flooding. However, ICA was unsuccessful and sewage began to infiltrate the Dunns’ HVAC system. Subsequently, black mold was detected in the HVAC system, the Dunns suffered health and respiratory problems, and they soon after vacated the home. The Dunns hired and fired two more contractors for unsatisfactory work throughout the winter before hiring a fourth to finish the job. Because the home remained vacant and unheated throughout the winter, the water pipes ruptured. The mold spread throughout the entire home and all of the contents needed to be replaced, which amounted to a claim of $340,000 on the policy.
American Family agreed to pay the full $340,000. However, the Dunns brought suit claiming that American Family breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by: 1) failing to screen ICA for expertise; 2) failing to screen ICA for liability insurance coverage; 3) failing to monitor ICA’s work; 4) failing to advise them that flooding can cause further damage, including freezing pipes and mold; and, 5) failing to adequately and promptly communicate with them and remediation subcontractors in the course of investigating and handling their claim. The trial court found no duty owed by American Family beyond adjustment and timely payment of claims. Because American Family paid timely and in full, they dismissed all of the Dunns’ claims. However, the Court of Appeals reversed in part.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chad Johnson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case
November 23, 2020 —
Eva Fedderly - Engineering News-RecordVJ Associates, a Hicksville, N.Y., estimating consultant, has agreed to pay $3.13 million in civil and criminal penalties to settle charges that the firm overbilled and falsified hours on multiple federal and state government-funded transportation and other contracts in New York and Massachusetts, the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston announced on Oct. 29.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eva Fedderly, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period
August 19, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn a dispute between two insurers, the district court determined that the contractor was not an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy. Navigators Spec. Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79338 (N. D. Cal. June 17, 2015).
McDevitt & McDevitt Construction Corporation was the general contractor for construction of a condominium complex. McDevitt was insured by Navigators Specialty Insurance Company. F&M was a subcontractor for the project for providing structural steel components. F&M's subcontract required it to obtain liability insurance and name McDevitt as an additional insured under a policy that was to be primary. F&M secured a policy with North American Capacity Insurance Company (NAC) which included an endorsement for additional insureds. The endorsement provided that an entity could be an additional insured only with respect to "occurrences resulting from work performed by you during the policy period, or occurrences resulting from the conduct of your business during the policy period."
McDevitt and F&M were sued for construct defect claims. Navigators defended McDevitt and NAC defended F&M. Navigators tendered McDevitt's defense to NAC because McDevitt was an additional insured under NAC's policy. NAC disclaimed coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Fifth Circuit Requires Causal Distinction for Ensuing Loss Exception to Faulty Work Exclusion
August 29, 2022 —
Avery J. Cantor & William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn Balfour Beatty v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals provided valuable insight on coverage available through ensuing loss exceptions to faulty work and design exclusions in builder’s risk insurance policies. In Balfour Beatty, the Court held that, in order to establish coverage through an ensuing loss exception, the ensuing loss must be causally distinct from the original excluded loss.1
Balfour Beatty, serving as general contractor for construction of a commercial office building in Houston, Texas, subcontracted with Milestone for steelwork on the project. As part of this work, Milestone welded a 2-inch metal plate to external tubing on the eighteenth floor of the building. While welding the plate in place, welding slag fell down the side of the building, damaging exterior glass windows on the floors below.
Balfour Beatty and Milestone, along with the developer, sought coverage for the damage to the windows under their builder’s risk policy, issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual denied coverage, claiming that the damage was excluded by the policy’s “Defects, Errors, and Omissions” exclusion. The insureds sued, arguing that the ensuing loss exception to this exclusion would carve back coverage because the damage to the windows constituted an “ensuing loss.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Avery J. Cantor, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Cantor may be contacted at ACantor@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Look Back at the Ollies
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, also known as the “Ollie” award, is presented to “an individual who is outstanding or has contributed to the betterment of the construction defect community.” West Coast Casualty asks members of the construction defect community to nominate those they feel are deserving of the award, and then members vote for one of four nominees. The award is presented at the West Coast Casualty Seminar. Those recognized receive a plaque and a donation in the winner’s name to Habitat for Humanity as well as a local California and Nevada charity.
Jerrold S. Oliver was a “’founding father’ in the alternate resolution process in construction defect claims and litigation. His loyalty and commitment to this community were beyond mere words as he was a true believer in the process of resolution.”
Past Award Winners:
1996 - Awarded to Ross R. Hart, Esq. (Mediator - American Arbitration Assoc.)
1997 - Awarded to Merv Thompson, Esq. (Mediator in private practice)
1999 - Awarded to Tom Craigo, (Adjuster - C.N.A. Insurance Company)
2000 - Awarded to Kristi Cole, (Adjuster - Safeco Insurance Company)
2001 - Awarded to Karen Rice, (Claims Manager - ACE / USA)
2002 - Awarded to Stephen Henning, Esq. (Wood, Smith, Henning and Berman, LLP)
2003 - Awarded to Ross Feinberg, Esq. (Feldscott, Lee, Feinberg, Grant and Mayfield LLP)
2004 - Awarded to Janet Shipes (Adjuster – C.N.A. Insurance Company)
2005 - Awarded to Edward Martinet (Expert – MC Consultants)
2006 - Awarded to Hon. Victoria V. Chaney (Judge – Los Angeles Superior Court)
2007 - Awarded to Bruce Edwards, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2008 - Awarded to Gerald Kurland, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2009 - Awarded to Keith Koeller, Esq. (Koeller, Nebecker, Carlson and Haluck, LLP)
2010 - Awarded to Terry Wolcott – (Construction Defect Manager – Travelers Ins. Co.)
2011 - Awarded to George Calkins, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2012 - Awarded to Joyia Greenfield, Esq. (Lorber, Greenfield and Polito, LLP)
2013 - Awarded to Margee Luper (Claim Manager – XL Insurance Group)
2014 - Awarded to Matt Liedle, Esq. (Liedle, Lounsbery, Larson & Lidl, LLP)
2015 - Awarded to Robert A. Bellagamba, Esq. (Special Master/Mediator, Castle & Dekker)
2016 - Awarded to Lisa Unger, (Senior Claims Examiner, Global Management Liability Markel)
2017 - Awarded to Caryn Siebert, (Vice President, Claims, Knight Insurance Group)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in Ball v. Friese Construction Co., finding that Mr. Ball’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Mr. Ball hired Friese Construction Company to build a single-family home. The sale was completed on March 29, 2001. That December, Mr. Ball complained of cracks in the basement floor. SCI Engineering, n engineering firm, hired by Friese, determined that the home’s footing had settled and recommended that Mr. Ball hire a structural engineer to determine if the footings were properly designed and sized. In September 2002, the structural engineer, Strain Engineering, determined that the cracks were due to slab movement, caused in part by water beneath the slab, recommending measures to move water away from the foundation. In 2005, Mr. Ball sent Friese correspondence “detailing issues he was having with the home, including problems with the basement slab, chimney structure, drywall tape, and doors.” All of these were attributed to the foundation problems. In 2006, Friese stated that the slab movement was due to Ball’s failure to maintain the storm water drains.
In 2009, Ball received a report from GeoTest “stating the house was resting on highly plastic clay soils.” He sued Friese in May, 2010. Friese was granted a summary judgment dismissing the suit, as the Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations. Ball appealed on the grounds that the extent of the damage could not be determined until after the third expert report. The appeals court rejected this claim, noting that a reasonable person would have concluded that after the conclusion of SCI and Strain Engineering that “injury and substantial damages may have occurred.”
The court concluded that as there were not “continuing wrongs causing new and distinct damages,” he should have filed his lawsuit after the first two expert reports, not waiting seven years for a third expert to opine.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
