Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees
January 13, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesConstruction lienors need to appreciate on the frontend that recovering statutory attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is NOT automatic—far from it. This is because the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is determined by the “significant issues test,” a subjective test with no bright line standards based on who the trial court finds prevailed on the significant issues in the case. If you want to talk about the subjective and convoluted nature of recovering attorney’s fees in a construction lien action under the significant issues test, a recent opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal is unfortunately another nail in the coffin.
In Newman v. Guerra, 2017 WL 33702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), a contractor recorded a construction lien on a residential renovation project and filed a lien foreclosure lawsuit. The homeowner countersued the contractor and asserted a fraudulent lien claim pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.31. An evidentiary hearing was held on whether the lien was a fraudulent lien and the trial court held that the lien was fraudulent (therefore unenforceable) because it included amounts that were not lienable under the law. The remaining claims including both parties’ breach of contract claims proceeded to trial. There was no attorney’s fees provision in the contract. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the contractor was entitled a monetary judgment on its breach of contract claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
$31.5M Settlement Reached in Contract Dispute between Judlau and the Illinois Tollway
September 16, 2024 —
Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-RecordThe Illinois Tollway will pay nearly $31.5 million to New York-based Judlau Contracting and its trade contractors to resolve a lawsuit filed after the tollway, in April, terminated a $324-million contract with Judlau to rebuild the southbound lanes of the Interstate 290 and Interstate 88 interchange near Oak Brook, Ill.
Reprinted courtesy of
Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion
March 01, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”.
The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Time to Update Your Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Forms (July 1, 2019)
May 01, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn a few of my recent posts here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed a few bills that were considered and/or passed in the General Assembly this year. One of the bills is one close to my heart and a subject much discussed here, namely mechanic’s liens.
HB2409 passed both houses of the General Assembly and has been signed by the Governor. This bill reconciled the language found in Virginia Code Sec. 43-4 with the various forms for general contractor, subcontractor and sub-subcontractor/supplier forms found in later sections of the code. As you will see if you download the .pdf of the bill as signed, this involved some tweaks to 43-4 and some updates to the mechanic’s lien forms that are in the code. The recent Desai case from the Virginia Supreme Court made it clear that such action was necessary.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrissghill@constructionlawva.com
Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses
May 25, 2020 —
James Hultz - Newmeyer DillionBusiness interruption coverage stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter of intense debate. The number of policyholder lawsuits continues to rise sharply and an increasing number of state legislatures are considering laws to specifically address such coverage.
Now, additional proposed legislation at the federal level could completely and definitively resolve the debate in favor of coverage for policyholders.
The Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020
On April 14, Congress introduced the Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020 (the “Act”) which, if passed, would require insurance companies to cover business interruption losses due to “viral pandemics, forced closures of businesses, mandatory evacuations, and public safety power shut-offs.” The bill further states:
Any exclusion in a contract for business interruption insurance that is in force on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be void to the extent that it excludes losses specified . . . .
The draft legislation also specifies that it preempts state approval of any contrary exclusion and renders such approval “void to the extent that it excludes losses specified.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Hultz, Newmeyer DillionMr. Hultz may be contacted at
james.hultz@ndlf.com
Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather
October 11, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThis week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings welcomes back Clay Olsen. Clay is is an attorney at Harper Whitwell PLLC. The firm is located in Mississippi and South Carolina where they routinely represent the interests of construction.
This season is not special as hurricanes are a part of life on the east coast and gulf shores. From New York to Louisiana, just about every state has seen massive property loss from hurricanes during the past ten years.
We often see harsh outcomes for those on the coast living in finished homes. What happens to the unfinished and current projects awaiting completion? If you’re building on the coast, take a look at all of the following risk aversion mechanisms:
- Builders Risk Insurance is necessary as is Coverage for named storms. Be sure to review the “excluded perils” or speak to your agent as hurricane coverage best not be omitted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Offices of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports
November 30, 2017 —
The Associated Press (Randall Chase) - BloombergDover, Del. (AP) -- An earthquake has jolted the Mid-Atlantic region of the East Coast, but there are no immediate reports of damage or injuries.
The U.S. Geological Survey says the 4.1 magnitude quake struck just after 4:45 p.m. Thursday, and was centered about 6 miles (10 kilometers) east-northeast of Dover, Delaware. It was felt as far away as Baltimore.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Associated Press (Randall Chase), Bloomberg
