Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.
The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.
The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.
American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”
The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”
In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”
Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that faulty workmanship on a construction project could not be considered an accident under a commercial general liability policy. The first reason they cited, according to Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, was that a majority of states had concluded that “claims of faulty workmanship, standing alone, are not ‘occurrences’ under CGL policies.” Mr. Salisbury points out a problem with that: “an overwhelming majority of state Supreme Courts that have considered the question have held that faulty workmanship can be (and usually is) accidental and, therefore, is a covered ‘occurrence.’’ He also notes that in four states, the legislatures have passed laws confirming that faulty workmanship is an occurrence.
The “majority viewpoint” cited by the Kansas Supreme Court is currently held by four other states, while twenty states hold the view that construction defects are accidents and thus occurrences. Since 2010, five states have reversed their stance, coming to what is now the clear majority view, including South Carolina. The Kansas court relied on a South Carolina decision that Mr. Salisbury described as “since repudiated” by “both the legislature and Supreme Court of that state.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI
December 23, 2023 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessEnsuring regulatory compliance of firewall constructions is getting a high-tech boost. Over the past 16 months, the construction team responsible for the iconic new Nyt Hospital Nordsjælland near Copenhagen used Imerso construction AI technology to achieve remarkable results. By using Imerso, the team enhanced work productivity while preventing costs and delays worth €5.2 million during the construction of the superstructure.
Inspired by this success, the team led by Project Manager Anders Kaas has since been eager to explore the potential of the technology in other areas. The opportunity arose to address a topic that has traditionally posed significant challenges and expenses in numerous construction projects – ensuring regulatory compliance of fire barriers and firewall constructions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer
September 28, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesProperty insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer.
By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss.
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
Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract
October 18, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHow do you determine damages for a breach of a construction contract? If you are interested in pursing a breach of a construction contract action, this is something you NEED TO KNOW!
The recent Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Cano, Inc. v. Judet, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2083b (Fla. 4th DCA 201) explains:
Where a contractor breaches a construction contract, and the owner sues for breach of contract and the cost to complete, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to perform the contract. See Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037, 1039-40 (Fla. 1982). In Grossman, the supreme court adopted subsection 346(1)(a) of the Restatement (First) of Contracts (1932), which it concluded was “designed to restore the injured party to the condition he would have been in if the contract had been performed.” Id. at 1039. In other words, the owner will obtain the benefit of his bargain [and this is known as benefit of the bargain damages]. But where there is a total breach of the contract as opposed to a partial breach, an injured party may elect to treat the contract as void and seek damages that will restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract or the party may seek the benefit of his bargain. See McCray v. Murray, 423 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
In Judet, an owner entered into a fixed price contract with a contractor to repair damage from a lightning strike. The contract amount was $300,000 payable in $30,000 installments. A few months after the contractor commenced performance, the owner terminated the contractor because the owner learned the contractor had not obtained required electrical and plumbing permits. At this time, the owner had paid the contractor $90,000. The contractor recorded a $40,000 lien for an amount it claimed it was owed and filed a lawsuit to foreclose its construction lien. The owner counter-sued the contractor to recover a claimed over-payment and a disgorgement of monies for unpermitted work. The owner was NOT claiming benefit of the bargain damages, but rather, damages for the contractor’s total breach “to restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract.”
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
Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?
July 14, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesRecently, I participated in a roundtable hosted by JAMS with experienced South Florida construction lawyers and retired circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of utilizing an initial decision maker (“IDM” and also referred to as a project neutral) or a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) to resolve disputes on construction projects. The IDM and DRB are designed to resolve disputes, specifically claims (whether for time, money, or both), during construction to keep the project progressing forward without being bogged down by the inevitable claim. There are numerous avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to filing a lawsuit or a demand for arbitration. The thought is that dispute resolution will be facilitated by techniques designed to assist the parties with the resolution of claims during construction. While direct discussions between the parties, meetings with the executives for business decision purposes, mediations, etc., are certainly helpful, sometimes these avenues are simply not enough to truly resolve a complex claim on a construction project that occurs during construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe question involves whether a Colorado law passed in 2005 has made it too easy for homeowners to sue developers for construction defects, allegedly causing a decline in condominium building in the state. The Construction Defect Journal became a forum for this lively debate with two prominent, Colorado, construction defect attorneys providing their views on the subject:
Jesse Howard Witt, of the Witt Law Firm, published “Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers.”
Read the full story...
In response, James M. Mulligan of Snell & Wilmer, LLP presented his perspective in, “Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?”
Read the full story...
The city of Lakewood did not wait for the state, but instead passed its own ordinance, which “gives developers and builders a ‘right to repair’ defects before facing litigation and would require condominium association boards to get consent from a majority of homeowners — rather than just the majority of the board — before filing suit,” according to John Aguilar’s piece in The Denver Post.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York
December 20, 2017 —
Bethany Barrese & Samantha Martino - Case Alert BlogOn November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson
Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
