Thank You!
February 28, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogI would like to thank the Construction Law Subsection of the Los Angeles County Bar Association for awarding me today (on 2/22/22 nonetheless) the 2022 James Acret Award for Outstanding Achievement in Construction Law Legal Writing.
The nominating committee of the subsection includes a veritable Who’s Who of construction law attorneys including Donna Kirkner (Chair), Michael J. Bayard, Theresa C. Tate, Aaron J. Flores, Marilyn Klinger, Marion Hack, John D. Hanover, James C. Earle, L. Adam Winegard, Bernard S. Kamine and Ashley B. Jordan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.”
The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn the UK, be careful what you tell your insurer; the Court of Appeal has upheld the legality of basis clauses. As Paul Lewis and Janetta Gibbs of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP explain, “a basis clause is a provision set out in the proposal form or in the insurance contract itself, to the effect that all or any of the answers to the questions in the proposal shall form the basis of the contract of insurance.” The catch, as they point out, is that “should any of those answers — whether material to the risk or not — prove to be untrue, the insurer may repudiate the policy and treat itself as never having been on risk.” There is a move in the UK to abolish the use of basis clauses in business insurance, but currently they are still legal.
This came up in a construction defect case covering latent defects in a public housing project. The contract between the owner, Genesis Housing Association Limited, and the contractor, Time and Tide (Bedford) Ltd, required TT Bedford to indemnify Genesis if it became insolvent. In the contract with the insurer, representatives of Bedford and Genesis referred to the contractor as “TT Construction.”
While the courts concluded that Bedford and Genesis were not guilty of misrepresentation or intent to defraud, they did note that neither party thought the firm’s name was “TT Construction.” Therefore, over the failure to name the builder correctly, the court found that the insurance contract was invalid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims
September 05, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCMR Construction and Roofing, LLC v. UCMS, LLC, 2022 WL 3012298 (11th Cir. 2022) is an interesting opinion where a contractor asserted a Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (known by its acronym “FDUTPA”) claim and tortious interference claims (with a contract and with an advantageous business relationship) against another contractor, i.e., a competitor, that were dismissed from the get-go. It is an opinion worthy of interest based on the claims asserted against a competitor. Throwing around FDUTPA and tortious interference may sound good from an intimidation standpoint, but pleading and then proving these claims are a lot different than loosely throwing around these claims. Before filing a lawsuit for FDUTPA and tortious interference, spend time unraveling the facts and the chronology. Do not rely on conclusory allegations simply to check the box regarding required elements to plead while ignoring the actual facts that support the allegations. These are fact-based claims and it is imperative the facts are fully known from on the onset so that they can be strategically pled and pursued.
In this matter, a contractor, the plaintiff, was hired by a condominium association around April 2018 to repair damage caused by a hurricane which included roofing work. The association was going to have its insurer pay its contractor. In May 2020, the association hired a new contractor to perform the same work (the “new contractor”). The association then directed the plaintiff to cease work since it hired the new contractor.
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
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
Hunton Insurance Practice, Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of The Legal 500 United States
July 02, 2024 —
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPHunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s insurance coverage practice was once again recognized among the top policyholder insurance practices nationally, receiving a Band 2 national ranking in the 2024 United States Edition of The Legal 500 for Insurance: Advice to Policyholders. The Legal 500 ranks the nation’s top law firms, practices, and lawyers, highlighting those that consistently provide “the most cutting edge and innovative advice to corporate counsel … based on feedback from 300,000 clients worldwide, submissions from law firms and interviews with leading private practice lawyers, and a team of researchers who have unrivalled experience in the legal market.”
Bolstering the team’s national recognition, several of the team’s lawyers received individual accolades: partner Lorelie (Lorie) Masters was named to The Legal 500’s Hall of Fame; team head Syed Ahmad was named a Leading Lawyer; partner Andrea DeField was named a Next Generation Partner; and counsel Latosha Ellis was named a Rising Star. In addition, partners Walter Andrews, Michael Levine, and Geoffrey Fehling were recognized as key lawyers on the team.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
NTSB Pittsburgh Bridge Probe Update Sheds Light on Collapse Sequence
June 06, 2022 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordThe National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued an update in its investigation of the Jan. 28 collapse of Pittsburgh's Fern Hollow Bridge that provides additional information about how the collapse proceeded, but does not discuss why the accident occurred. That finding of a probable cause isn't expected until sometime in 2023.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Urban Retrofits, Tall Buildings, and Sustainability
January 14, 2025 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs I took a small break between cases and contract reviews, an article in the November 2, 2009 issue of ENR Magazine caught my eye. The article discusses the efforts of a Chicago architect to create a holistic approach to the renovation and “de-carbonization” of the Chicago Loop area. The plan involves large scale energy retrofits and sustainable reuse of Chicago’s tall buildings.
Another interesting aspect of this article points out that tall buildings in general have hit the construction skids in the US and Latin America, this is not the case in Europe and the Middle East. However, those buildings that are going up (and up and up) are trying to go “green.” Several of the worlds tallest buildings, or soon to be so, are seeking LEED gold or platinum certification.
These two trends, in my view, are healthy. First of all, much like the goal of Build2Sustain, the Chicago effort is a move toward sustainable reuse and retrofit/renovation. I see this as a great trend and a way to perform the “Three R’s” (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), by reusing existing building materials and footprints without the cost and use of newer materials from tear downs and rebuilds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
