Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims
May 02, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the insurer improperly denied a defense for construction defect claims made against the insured. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMillin Tex. Homes, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEIS 40363 (W.D. Texas March 8, 2022).
McMillin was a developer, general contractor and home seller. It constructed multiple homes in various communities in the San Antonio area. After the homes were completed, homeowners observed defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish. After claims were lodged against McMillin, the various claims were tendered to Amerisure. Amerisure filed for declaratory judgment that it had to duty to defend or indemnify and moved for summary judgment.
Amerisure first argued the homeowners' faulty workmanship claims did not allege "property damage" under the policies. It argued there were no allegations that any property damage existed, but merely that the stucco suffered from construction defects. The court disagreed. Among the allegations was the statement that due to the construction defects, the homes suffered damage "not only to the exterior stucco, but also to the underlying wire lath, paper backing, house wrap, flashing, water resistive barriers, sheathing, interior walls, interior floors and/ or other property." Consequently, the underlying claims amounted to property damage.
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
Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway
June 21, 2021 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordWhen the Norwegian Public Roads Administration asked the design-build team of Sweco, PNC, Armando Rito Engenharia and Isachsen to deliver a 643-meter-long concrete box-girder bridge completely in 3D, designers with Armando Rito were initially a bit skeptical. In the firm’s home country of Portugal, it had used building information modeling on some projects, “but not in terms of bridges, and not this advanced,” says Tiago Vieira, the firm’s design team leader. “Norway is more advanced regarding this type of methodology than other countries.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors
October 21, 2024 —
Heather Zipperer - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogThe recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how well written contracts and timely legal action can make all the difference in resolving disputes between municipalities, general contractors, and subcontractors. The ruling favored Aqua Engineering; a subcontractor that played a role in a wastewater treatment facility project gone wrong. The court’s decision highlighted key legal principles, including the economic loss rule and the importance of well-structured contracts in construction disputes. Whether you are a subcontractor looking to avoid undue liability or a general contractor seeking to ensure subcontractors shoulder their fair portion of responsibility, this case offers valuable lessons for all parties involved in construction projects.
The Background: A Wastewater Project with Issues
In 2008, the Town of Mancos, Colorado, hired Souder, Miller & Associates (“SMA”) to design a new wastewater treatment facility. SMA subcontracted Aqua Engineering to help implement a specific wastewater treatment system known as the Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (“MSABP”). However, after construction, the facility never worked as expected. For years, the Town faced ongoing issues, and despite Aqua’s involvement in attempts to fix the problems, the facility remained dysfunctional.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits
July 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFActing on the case of Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose applies. The case was referred to the court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had asked for a clarification of Arizona law. The case focused on three questions:
1. Does the filing of a motion for class certification in an Arizona court toll the statute of limitations for individuals, who are included within the class, to file individual causes of action involving the same defendants and the same subject matter? 2. If so, does this class-action tolling doctrine apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 12-552? 3. If the doctrine applies to statutes of repose, and specifically § 12-552, may a court weigh the equities of the case in determining whether, and to what extent, an action is tolled?
The litigation at hand has a lengthy history, starting with a case referred to as “Hoffman” in 2003. The Albano plaintiffs were not able to join in Hoffman, and they filed their own lawsuit in 2006. An additional lawsuit was filed by the Albano plaintiffs in 2007. The courts decided that the Albano plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely.
The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the statute of repose was the appropriate standard for this case. They noted that “the eight-year statute of repose period began to run on November 6, 1997, the date of the Town of Gilbert’s final inspection. Albano II was filed on November 5, 2007.”
The court found that the plaintiffs had waited too long for start their suit. As a result, they found it unnecessary to answer the first or third questions. Justice A. John Pelander of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote the opinion, dated June 30, 2011.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Look Back at the Ollies
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, also known as the “Ollie” award, is presented to “an individual who is outstanding or has contributed to the betterment of the construction defect community.” West Coast Casualty asks members of the construction defect community to nominate those they feel are deserving of the award, and then members vote for one of four nominees. The award is presented at the West Coast Casualty Seminar. Those recognized receive a plaque and a donation in the winner’s name to Habitat for Humanity as well as a local California and Nevada charity.
Jerrold S. Oliver was a “’founding father’ in the alternate resolution process in construction defect claims and litigation. His loyalty and commitment to this community were beyond mere words as he was a true believer in the process of resolution.”
Past Award Winners:
1996 - Awarded to Ross R. Hart, Esq. (Mediator - American Arbitration Assoc.)
1997 - Awarded to Merv Thompson, Esq. (Mediator in private practice)
1999 - Awarded to Tom Craigo, (Adjuster - C.N.A. Insurance Company)
2000 - Awarded to Kristi Cole, (Adjuster - Safeco Insurance Company)
2001 - Awarded to Karen Rice, (Claims Manager - ACE / USA)
2002 - Awarded to Stephen Henning, Esq. (Wood, Smith, Henning and Berman, LLP)
2003 - Awarded to Ross Feinberg, Esq. (Feldscott, Lee, Feinberg, Grant and Mayfield LLP)
2004 - Awarded to Janet Shipes (Adjuster – C.N.A. Insurance Company)
2005 - Awarded to Edward Martinet (Expert – MC Consultants)
2006 - Awarded to Hon. Victoria V. Chaney (Judge – Los Angeles Superior Court)
2007 - Awarded to Bruce Edwards, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2008 - Awarded to Gerald Kurland, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2009 - Awarded to Keith Koeller, Esq. (Koeller, Nebecker, Carlson and Haluck, LLP)
2010 - Awarded to Terry Wolcott – (Construction Defect Manager – Travelers Ins. Co.)
2011 - Awarded to George Calkins, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2012 - Awarded to Joyia Greenfield, Esq. (Lorber, Greenfield and Polito, LLP)
2013 - Awarded to Margee Luper (Claim Manager – XL Insurance Group)
2014 - Awarded to Matt Liedle, Esq. (Liedle, Lounsbery, Larson & Lidl, LLP)
2015 - Awarded to Robert A. Bellagamba, Esq. (Special Master/Mediator, Castle & Dekker)
2016 - Awarded to Lisa Unger, (Senior Claims Examiner, Global Management Liability Markel)
2017 - Awarded to Caryn Siebert, (Vice President, Claims, Knight Insurance Group)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Revamp to Nationwide Permits Impacting Oil and Gas Pipeline, Utility and Telecom Line Work
March 29, 2021 —
Alex P. Prochaska, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsTo avoid delay costs and penalties, contractors involved in pipeline and utilities construction maintenance, repair and removal need to understand how the 43 year old Nationwide Permit (NWP) regime has changed specific to the NWP 12 and what is now required for compliance. This change is important for contractors who construct, maintain, or repair pipelines that cross or impact waters of the United States, including wetlands. NWPs are a useful tool to streamline construction of a pipeline project, but it is important for contractors to know when certain terms and conditions still apply to the particular NWP and those that have been eliminated.
On January 13, 2021, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) published a final rule that reissued and modified twelve existing NWPs and issued four new NWPs that will take effect on March 15, 2021.1 The remaining 40 NWPs that were not reissued or modified under this rule will continue under the general conditions and definitions of the January 6, 2017 final rule.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alex P. Prochaska, Jones Walker LLPMr. Prochaska may be contacted at
aprochaska@joneswalker.com
Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas
April 19, 2022 —
Frederick H. Wen - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPHere are some recent Texas legislative amendments and Texas Supreme Court cases from the past year concerning the construction industry in Texas.
1) Recent Legislative Amendments Concerning the Construction Industry:
a) The Texas Legislature throws a “Spear” in the Lonergan Doctrine to reduce general/subcontractor liability for owner-provided plans and specs:
Forty-nine out of the fifty states follow the Spearin Doctrine under which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-provided plans and specs in construction contracts. On the other hand, for over a century, Texas has followed the Lonergan Doctrine under which, absent contractual language to the contrary, a general contractor/subcontractor, instead of the owner, bears the risk of deficiencies in owner-provided design documents, once they started construction. Texas Senate Bill 219, which went into effect on September 1, 2021, finally changed that and brought Texas in line with the rest of the country, with a few exceptions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Frederick H. Wen, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMr. Wen may be contacted at
fhwen@grsm.com
“Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention
March 22, 2018 —
Erinn Contreras and Joy O. Siu – Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIt is industry standard in California for owners of a construction project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work it has completed, less a certain percentage that is withheld as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. This withholding is called a retention. Contractors generally pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors via a retention clause in the subcontract. Under such clause, if a subcontractor fails to complete its work or correct deficiencies in its work, the owner and the general contractor may use the retention to bring the subcontractor’s work into conformance with the requirements of the contract.
When and how retention payments must be released are governed by, among other statutes, Civil Code section 8800
et seq. Specifically, Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after the general contractor receives all or part of a retention payment. Failure to make payments in accordance with Section 8814 can subject an owner or a contractor to a (1) two percent penalty per a month on the amount wrongfully withheld, and (2) claim for attorney’s fees for any litigation required to collect the wrongfully withheld retention payments. (Civ. Code, § 8818.)
Reprinted courtesy of
Erinn Contreras, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and
Joy Siu, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
