Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Denied
June 04, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer failed to meet its burden on summary judgment seeking a judgment that faulty workmanship precluded coverge. Auto-Owners Ins., Co. v. AAA Discount Homes, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48463 (S.D. Ga. March 19, 2024).
Heather Way sued AAA Discount Homes, LLC and Delta Transport & Management, Inc. for manufacturing defects found in a manufactured home which was delivered and assembled by Delta. Way had contracted with AAA for the construction, delivery, assembly, setting, tie down with brick underpinning steps and construction of front and back porches. AAA, assisted by Delta, delivered the home and assembled it, including raising the roof, over the course of a few days.
Subsequently, Way discovered extensive water damage and mold in the home. Way alleged that AAA and its subcontractors made careless, unsafe, and unsuccessful attempts at removing the old and repairing the water damage. The presence of chemicals in the home made it uninhabitable. Way alleged the home was improperly assembled by Delta and its negligence resulted in damages.
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
First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill
January 18, 2021 —
Syed S. Ahmad & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Andrews KurthThe First Circuit recently held that a “Special Hazard and Fluids Limitation Endorsement” was ambiguous and therefore there was excess coverage for a fuel spill that occurred after a tanker-truck overturned.
In Performance Trans. Inc. v. General Star Indem. Co., the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company. The District Court held that the excess policy General Star issued to Performance Trans. Inc. precluded coverage for a spill that resulted in the leaking of thousands of gallons of fuel. The District Court relied on the existence of a total pollution exclusion to bar coverage and held that the policy’s Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement could not create an ambiguity that would afford coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design
July 25, 2021 —
Caroline A. Harcourt & Adam Weaver - Gravel2GavelThe shift towards a “greener” environment has resulted in cities and states implementing electrification mandates, which will have a major impact on both current and future building design. Currently, most commercial and residential end users are already all-electric. However, there are some exceptions, such as space and water heating, that use a significant amount of energy. Several states, including California and New York, have cities that have introduced legislation requiring new construction to be all-electric. This means, for example, using electricity for heating rather than fossil fuels such as natural gas. Mandate or not, building owners and developers should consider the risks and rewards of an all-electric design.
General Rewards
- Reaching Climate Goals: As part of the Clean Energy Plan, as described in a previous post, President Biden has created a goal for the United States of achieving a carbon pollution-free American utility sector by 2035. Because residential and commercial building account for 40 percent of energy consumption in the United States, all-electric building designs will help governments and businesses reach the ambitious climate goals that have been set for the coming years.
Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury and
Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars
August 23, 2021 —
William Underwood - ConsensusDocs“Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – the most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’ – but only slightly less well-known is this: ‘Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.’”[1]
Vizzini forgot to include “never fight a two-front war with your owner and a subcontractor” on his list of classic blunders, but it certainly belongs there. This article examines practical tips and tricks for general contractors to avoid the classic blunder of a two-front war, including recommended contract provisions and sound project documentation practices.
Admittedly, general contractors face a wide array of obligations on a project. And perhaps one of the most delicate balancing acts is managing relationships with the owner and your subcontractors. But far too often general contractors find themselves in the difficult position of fighting a two-front war against one (or more) of their subcontractors and the project owner.
But this does not always have to be the case—there are ways for general contractors to reduce the risk of finding themselves in a two-front war. And every project does not have to devolve in a circular firing squad with you in the middle. That said, this article comes with the caveat that a general contractor cannot avoid a two-front war in every instance, nor does this article examine every imaginable way to reduce the risk of a two-front war (see e.g. https://www.consensusdocs.org/pass-through-subcontractor-claims-liquidating-agreements-and-avoiding-a-two-front-war/). But this article will provide an overview of several key tools that can be used to minimize the risk of falling into a classic blunder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Underwood, Jones Walker LLPMr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business
May 01, 2023 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIs the title to this article possibly true? Yes, absolutely! I have seen it happen. Let me tell you how it happens so you can avoid such a result.
When contractors, subcontractors or suppliers in California construction projects are not paid they often record a mechanics lien on the property on which they worked. This is a customary accepted legal process for the claimant to secure its right to payment. The mechanics lien enables the claimant to eventually sell the property and obtain payment from the proceeds to the extent they remain unpaid. California Civil Code Section 8460 generally requires that a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics’ lien must be filed in court within ninety (90) days after the mechanics’ lien is recorded. If no lawsuit has been filed in court within this 90-day period, then the lien generally becomes unenforceable. Because the mechanics lien remains a cloud on the title to the property if not released, the lien claimant usually releases the mechanics lien if they have failed to meet the lawsuit deadline. Lien claimants will also release a lien and/or dismiss the foreclosure lawsuit in exchange for payment. It is rare that the property is actually sold to obtain payment. This is a brief description of the pathway to payment through the use of a mechanics lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy
March 02, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub LiebermanMost professional liability polices include some form of a “related claims” provision that generally provides where two or more claims or wrongful acts are causally or logically related, they will be deemed to constitute a single claim. Importantly, these provisions typically provide that those “claims” are then deemed to have been “first made” at the time the first claim or act was committed for purposes of the policy’s claims-made and reporting requirements. Understandably, these provisions provide insurers and insureds with some clarity over the number and timing of claims that could involve multiple errors or omissions, and potentially aggregate all related claims or acts into a single policy period. While reasonable in principle, application of such provisions, especially involving large scale design and construction projects, is not always so easy.
Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 18-cv-61842 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2019), involved such an insurance coverage dispute with a design project gone wrong. DeRose Design Consultants, Inc. (“DeRose”) was hired as a structural engineer to design “ice tanks” to store and chill water for an energy efficient air conditioning facility constructed on the campus of Nova Southeastern University (“NSU”). An early water test on one of the tanks determined the walls of the ice tank deflected, leaked, and cracked when the tank was filled with water. DeRose later discovered that the problems with the ice tank were caused by a structural design error.
The first errors were discovered in early 2009, and reported under DeRose’s professional liability policy with Evanston. DeRose then created a remedial design to repair the tanks, which involved strengthening repairs. Additional leaking and an early indication of corrosion involving the Remedial Design arose as early as October 25, 2009. Several field investigation reports were prepared in 2011 and 2012 confirming these issues with the Remedial Design. A third report in February 2012, however, identified a new error involving the concrete slab under the ice tanks also designed by DeRose. The third report concluded that the concreate slab was overstressed and could not handle the loads of the ice tanks. The report also concluded, however, that the design defects in the concrete slab were “unrelated” to the original design defect of the ice tank walls or Remedial Design.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIs an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action.
In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses.
The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085).
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams
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
Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.
The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”
Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.
After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.
La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.
La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”
The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”
The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.
As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
