Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts
May 07, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorWhen you are involved in construction litigation, you have battles on several fronts, including those against subcontractors, owners, insurers and the court. Shoring up your defenses on each of these fronts is imperative, or you may lose the battle or, worse yet, the war.
A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (overseeing federal courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia) Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, illustrates the various battle fronts involved in a construction case. In this case, the Carithers (Home Owner) sued their homebuilder, Cronk Duch Miller & Associates (Contractor) in state court after discovering multiple defects with their home.
Battle Front #1—Claim Against Contractor
The Contractor and Home Owner entered into a consent judgment for approximately $90,000.00 and the Contractor assigned its claim against its insurer to the Home Owner. It is unlikely that the Contractor paid the $90,000.00 judgment. The Home Owner likely agreed not to collect on the $90,000.00 in exchange for the chance to pursue the Contractor’s claim against its insurer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?
February 08, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMaguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal).
In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.
[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal.
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care
February 05, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, in Eriksson v. Nunnink (Case No. E057158), held a release of liability between Decedent and Defendant was enforceable as a defense to the Decedent's Parents' wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") claims. In Eriksson, the Court concluded that on the basis of the signed release agreement, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Decedent and thus could only be liable for Decedent's death if caused by the Defendant's gross negligence. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish gross negligence and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin and
Whitney L. Stefko
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dot I’s and Cross T’s When It Comes to Construction Licensure Requirements
February 21, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIt should serve as no surprise that making sure you are appropriately licensed is important. This includes complying with any state requirement that requires licensure, as well as complying with any local licensure requirement. Not doing so can result in the dispute centered on the lack of licensure, as opposed to leading facts relating to the substance of the dispute. In other words, you are dealing with a technicality that could have harsh implications. This lack of licensure issue recently played out in a dispute with a contractor and subcontractor in ABA Interior, Inc. v. The Owen Corp., 2022 WL 386103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), dealing with a local licensure requirement.
In this case, a subcontractor was hired by the general contractor for a commercial project in Palm Beach County. The subcontract contained the standard provision that the subcontractor would comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
What Rich Millennials Want in a Luxury Home: 20,000 Square Feet
February 15, 2018 —
Patrick Clark – BloombergA new generation of affluent homebuyers powered by a surge in inherited wealth is driving the luxury-home market, demanding larger spaces and fancier finishes, according to a report heralding “the rise of the new aristocracy.”
Prospective homebuyers under 50 account for most of those shopping for homes priced at $1 million or more, according to the
report. Nearly a quarter of high-net-worth consumers between 25 and 49 said they would look for at least 20,000 square feet when they made their next home purchase; it was just 6 percent for respondents 50 or older. The report is based on a survey of more than 500 consumers with at least $1 million in investable assets, conducted last month on behalf of Luxury Portfolio International, a network of real estate brokerages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, Bloomberg
Near-Zero Carbon Cement Powers Sustainable 3D-Printed Homes
August 07, 2023 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessEco Material Technologies and Hive 3D have unveiled the first 3D-printed homes using near-zero carbon cement as part of a housing project called The Casitas @ The Halles.
The homes, ranging from 400 to 900 square feet, are constructed using Eco Material’s durable, longer-lasting cement called PozzoCEM Vite®. The cement replaces 100% of traditional Portland cement, has 92% lower emissions, and sets much faster.
Hive 3D has developed a system to mix Eco Material’s cement replacement products with locally-sourced aggregates on-site, enabling cost-efficient and affordable construction. The collaboration aims to offer sustainable housing solutions and transition the construction industry away from high-carbon materials.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling
February 01, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems.
As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds
November 04, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker.
East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion.
As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
