Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion
October 26, 2020 —
Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThose of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims.
Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Expanded Virginia Court of Appeals Leads to Policyholder Relief
January 29, 2024 —
Michael S. Levine & Olivia G. Bushman - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogExercising its newly expanded jurisdiction that now permits Virginia’s intermediate appellate courts to hear insurance coverage disputes, the Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court decision that allowed a two-year “Suits Against Us” provision to serve as a basis for an insurer’s refusal to reimburse repair and replacement costs incurred more than two years after the date of loss. Bowman II v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Record No. 1256-22-3 (Nov. 21, 2023). CAV (unpublished opinion).
In the proceeding below, the circuit court found no justiciable controversy and dismissed the complaint where repairs to the policyholder’s fire-damaged home continued more than two years after the date of the fire. The circuit court relied on a two-year limitation in the policy that governed the period within which the policyholder must bring suit against the insurer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Olivia G. Bushman, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Bushman may be contacted at obushman@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Upholds $68M Jury Award Over 2021 Fatal Fall in Philadelphia
January 28, 2025 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordA Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge has reaffirmed a $68.5-million jury verdict in a wrongful death case brought by the wife and child of an immigrant siding-installation worker who fell to his death while working on a small Philadelphia apartment project in late 2021.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case
April 10, 2023 —
Starr M. Forster - Lewis BrisboisHouston, Texas (March 30, 2023) – The Supreme Court of Texas recently upheld a Thirteenth Court of Appeals’ judgment finding that the plaintiffs in a premises defect case brought against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) had failed to raise a fact issue regarding the creation of a dangerous condition and, consequently, failed to establish waiver of the defendant’s sovereign immunity.
Daniel K. Christ and Nicole D. Salinas v. Tex. DOT, et al., No. 21-0728, 66 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 306, 2023 Tex. LEXIS 128, at *1 (Feb 10, 2023).
Background
Plaintiffs Daniel Christ and his wife, Nicole Salinas (the Christs), were riding their motorcycle through a construction zone when they collided with a vehicle that crossed into their lane. TxDOT’s traffic control plan for the related construction project called for the placement of concrete barriers between opposing travel lanes; however, once construction on the project began, TxDOT’s contractor determined there was not enough space for the concrete barriers and revised the traffic control plan to substitute yellow stripes and buttons for the concrete barriers. TxDOT never approved the revised traffic control plan in writing; however, TxDOT’s contractor contended TxDOT orally approved of the change. The Christs sued the driver of the other vehicle, TxDOT, and TxDOT’s contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Starr M. Forster, Lewis BrisboisMs. Forster may be contacted at
Starr.Forster@lewisbrisbois.com
AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test
February 18, 2020 —
Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLPConstruction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption.
California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor.
Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.
- The subcontract is in writing;
- The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
- If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
- The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
- The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
- The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
- The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in
S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply.
You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the
Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & FearsMr. Dillion may be contacted at
bad@paynefears.com
The Risk of A Fixed Price Contract Is The Market
August 03, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen performing work on a fixed price or unit, there is risk that is being assumed on your end. One risk is the market. You are ultimately banking on the fact that the market is not going to make your fixed prices unprofitable. That’s not an unforeseeable occurrence because the market shifts and that shift can have a negative ripple effect.
In a recent case out of the Federal Circuit, U.S. Aeroteam, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 243176 (Fed.Cir. 2022), this market risk played a role in a fixed price contract. Here, a contractor was hired by the federal government to produce ground support trailers. A key component of these trailers was a running gear. The contractor relied on a vendor for these running gears. Due to financial difficulties, the vendor had to raise its unit price for the running gears. Based on the increased price, the contractor elected to manufacture the running gears itself. The contractor asked the government if this was ok and the government approved the request. Once the contractor started manufacturing these running gears, it had an “awe” moment – the manufacturing costs were higher than anticipated. The contractor submitted a request for equitable adjustment which the government denied. The Contractor than sued the government raising three arguments to support its entitlement to additional costs: (1) constructive change; (2) cardinal change; and (3) commercial impracticability. The contractor lost on all arguments. It probably should have lost on all arguments.
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
Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements
November 19, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIt is important to remember that if you are going to substitute materials from those specified, you need to make sure there is proper approval in doing so–make sure to comply with the contractual requirements to substitute materials. Otherwise, you could be in a situation where you are contractually required to remove the installed substituted materials and replace with the correct specified materials. This is not the situation you want to find yourself in because this is oftentimes a costly endeavor. This was the situation in Appeal-of-Sauer, Inc., discussed below, on a federal project. The best thing that you can do is comply with the contractual requirements if you want to substitute materials. If you are in the situation where it is too late, i.e., you already installed incorrect materials, you want to demonstrate the substituted materials are functionally equivalent to the specified materials and/or come up with an engineering solution, as required, that could be less costly then ripping out the installed material and replacing with the correct material. Even doing so, however, is not a “get out of jail free card” and does not necessarily mean there is not a strong basis to require you to install the correct specified material.
In Appeal of- Sauer, Inc., ASBCA 61847, 2021 WL 4888192 (ASBCA September 29, 2021), a federal project’s engineering requirements required cast iron piping for the above ground sanitary system. However, the prime contractor installed PVC piping instead of cast iron piping. The prime contractor believed it had the appropriate approval through its submittal. The government, through its contracting officer, directed the prime contractor to remove installed PVC piping to replace with cast iron. The government did not believe PVC piping was the functional equivalent of cast iron piping for the above ground sanitary system due to its concern with the noise level of waste materials flowing through the piping. The prime contractor submitted a claim for its removal and replacement costs which was denied by the contracting officer. On appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Board agreed with the contracting officer explaining: “While we agree that a design change could be approved by the designer of record and brought to the attention of the government before being incorporated into the design documents, the [prime contractor’s] task order required that such a design change meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and accepted proposal. The plumbing submittal [the prime contractor] issued here, showing the use of PVC instead of cast iron for the above ground waste piping, did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Appeal of-Sauer, Inc., supra.
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
New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes
June 18, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that the Mortage Bankers Association (MBA) completed their Builder Application Survey (BAS), which demonstrated that “mortgage applications for new home purchases decreased by a not seasonally adjusted monthly rate of 8.4% in May 2014. However, on a 12-month basis, mortgage applications for new home purchases in May 2014 were 4.9% higher than their level in May 2013.”
According to Eye on Housing, “This is the fifth consecutive month of year-over-year increases in mortgage applications for new home purchases.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
