Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered
April 20, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAssignment of insurance proceeds as part of a settlement against the subcontractor for faulty workmanship was not covered under the CGL policy in accordance with Illinois law. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins Co v. Metro North Condominium Assoc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4107 (7th Cir. March 8, 2017).
Metro North Condominium Association hired a developer to build a condominium. The developer used CSC Glass to install the building's windows. CSC installed the windows defectively, causing the building to sustain significant water damage following a rain storm.
Metro North sued the developer, who turned out to be insolvent. Metro North amended its complaint to add a claim against CSC for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Metro North eventually dismissed its lawsuit in exchange for an assignment of CSC's policy with Allied and payment of any right to $700,000 worth of insurance coverage. The settlement specified that it was not intended to compensate Metro North for the cost of repairing or replacing CSC's defectively installed windows, but rather for the damage to the remaining parts of Metro North's condominium.
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 in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law
June 13, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found that the insurer acted in bad faith when the claim was denied based on the adjuster's lack of knowledge of recent case law in Washington. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Constr. Assocs. of Spokane, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53533 (E.D. Wash. March 24, 2022).
Construction Associates of Spokane was a general contractor hired for a project at the Paulsen Building in Spokane. Construction Association hired a subcontractor, Merit Electric, for whom Mark Wilson worked. Wilson was seriously injured on August 20, 2016. He sued the Construction Associates along with other defendants three years later.
Construction Associates tendered to Merit Electric's broker, Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. Alliant forward the tender to Security National. The tender letter included a certificate of insurance issued by Alliant to Contractor Associates on September 3, 2019 and the subcontract with Merit. The subcontract required Merit to maintain CGL coverage with limits of $1 million. Further, the subcontractor was to issue certificate of insurance to the Contractor.
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
Mechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?
January 04, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupMechanics Lien Release Bond – What Happens Now? What exactly is a Mechanics Lien and Why Might it Need to be Released?
California law entitles unpaid contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers to record a mechanics lien on property where they performed work or supplied materials. The mechanics lien attaches to the real property as a legal interest and secures the right to payment for the work performed and materials supplied. If payment is not forthcoming the mechanics lien allows the property where the work was performed and materials supplied to be sold under court order to satisfy the debt. It is a powerful remedy against owners and their agents who do not pay for work performed and materials supplied to improve the owner’s property.
A Mechanics Lien Release Bond Frees Property from a Mechanics Lien
Owners typically do not wish to have their property sold out from under them. Fortunately for owners, there is a method by which a mechanics lien can be substituted for another interest and sale of the property thereby avoided. This method is through the use of a mechanics lien release bond. California Civil Code §8424 allows a property owner or contractor effected by a mechanics lien to record a mechanics lien release bond equal to 125 percent of the lien amount with the County Recorder where the mechanics lien has been recorded. The effect of this is to substitute the mechanics lien release bond for the mechanics lien itself, thereby relieving the property from the possibility of that property being sold to satisfy the debt. Instead, any payment made will come from the release bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement
May 24, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far?
In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch
January 10, 2018 —
Richard W. Brown - SDV BlogArgument before the Court of Appeals has now been scheduled for February 7, 2018, in
Gilbane Building Co. v. St. Paul Insurance, with a long anticipated decision by New York’s highest court to be issued shortly thereafter. In its September 18, 2017 edition, Law360.com highlighted three major cases with significant implications on insurance coverage that will soon be decided by the New York Court of Appeals. Gilbane presents an opportunity for the Court to address the growing number of divergent decisions regarding the prerequisites for qualifying as an additional insured, as it considers an Appellate Division’s holding that a construction manager is not entitled to coverage as an additional insured under a contractor’s policy because the two companies did not enter into a direct contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at
rwb@sdvlaw.com
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
November 21, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinOriginally published by CDJ on June 5, 2017
Background
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
November 13, 2023 —
Yaron Shaham - Kahana FeldIn order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state.
California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party.
Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Shaham, Kahana FeldMr. Shaham may be contacted at
yshaham@kahanafeld.com
Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure
May 03, 2017 —
Gregory D. Podolak - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In breaking news this week, LAW360.com posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that “a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers’ potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn’t extend to products containing the carcinogen.”
In its detailed analysis of the decision, LAW360 turned to Greg Podolak for his analysis.
Gregory D. Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s Southeast office, said the ruling is a cautionary tale that should galvanize policyholders and their insurance brokers to take a closer look at policies to delete or curtail broad “arising out of” language in exclusions. Otherwise, insureds could find themselves without any coverage for claims even remotely related to a certain product, he said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Podolak may be contacted at
gdp@sdvlaw.com
