District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case
August 04, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Continental Western Insurance Company v. Shay Construction Inc., Judge Walker Miller has granted a summary judgment against Shay Construction and their co-defendant, Milender White Construction Company.
Shay was the framing subcontractor for Milender White on what the court described as “a major construction project in Grand County, Colorado.” Two of Shay’s subcontractors, Wood Source Inc. and Chase Lumber Company furnished materials, labor, and equipment to Shay. They subsequently sued for nonpayment and sought to enforce mechanic’s liens, naming both Shay and Milender as defendants. Milender White alleged that Shay had “breached its obligation under its subcontracts with Milender White.”
Shay’s insurance provider, Continental Western, stated that its coverage did not include “the dispute between Shay, its subcontractors, particularly the cross claims asserted by Milender White.” Shay then sued Continental Western, alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.
The court, however, has found with Continental Western and has granted them a summary judgment. They found “no genuine issue as to any material fact.” The judge did not side with Continental Western on their interpretation of the phrase “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages.” The court found that the Colorado courts have not limited this to tort actions only. However, as Milender’s cross claim included claims of faulty workmanship on the part of Shay, Judge Miller found for Continental.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy
November 02, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product constitutes an “accident” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. In aligning itself with a growing number of jurisdictions, the Michigan Supreme Court answered, “yes.” In Skanska, a construction manager brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer seeking coverage as additional insured for the cost of repairs to correct faulty work performed by its subcontractor in renovation of medical center. In 2009, the construction manager hired MAP to install a steam boiler and related piping for the medical center’s heating system. MAP’s installation included several expansion joints, which it was later discovered, were installed backward. Significant damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system occurred as a result. The construction manager performed the work of repairing and replacing the damaged property to the tune of $1.4 million, and submitted a claim to MAP’s CGL insurer, Amerisure, seeking coverage as an additional insured.
Amerisure denied the claim contending that MAP’s defective construction was not a covered “occurrence” within the CGL policy. The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but did not define the term “accident.” The trial court looked to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369 (1990), which defined “accident” as “…a result which is not anticipated and…takes place without the insured’s foresight or expectation and without design or intentional causation on his part.” But, again citing Hawkeye, the trial court concluded that “[d]efective workmanship, standing alone, is not an occurrence within the meaning of a[ ] general liability insurance contract[;] an occurrence exists where the insured’s faulty work product damages the property of another.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington
March 28, 2018 —
Neal Philip – Insurance Law BlogAs previously reported in this blog, Washington case law generally affords insureds a broad right to the discovery of claim file materials, including information that should be protected from disclosure by attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine.
Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P. 3d 239 (2013). The discovery pitfalls created by
Cedell were on full display in a recent Western District of Washington decision that granted an insured’s motion to compel production of work product and attorney/client communications from an insurer’s claims file.
Westridge Townhomes Owners Ass’n v. Great American Assur. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27960 (W.D. Wash. February 21, 2018)
The background facts are somewhat unclear, but it appears that the insured in this case made a claim for coverage under two insurance policies and there was an allegedly inadequate response from the insurers. The insured sued its insurers for coverage in 2016 before the insurers issued a declination of coverage letter. The two insurers retained the same attorney to represent them, and that attorney subsequently wrote a declination letter on behalf of the insurers, which was sent to the insured on April 12, 2017. The insured ultimately sought production of the entire claim file, which had not been split between the claim investigation and the coverage litigation. The insurers argued, among other things, that the insured was not entitled to anything after the litigation commenced in 2016 on work product grounds, and certainly was not entitled to communications with their attorney.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Neal Philip, Gordon, Reese, Scully, & MansukhaniMr. Philip may be contacted at
nphilip@grsm.com
Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas
June 29, 2017 —
Richard E. Morton - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPlaintiff Ivana Kirola, who suffers from cerebral palsy, sued the City and County of San Francisco, in a class action contending certain public areas, including rights-of-way, pools, parks and other recreation areas, did not meet the mandate of Title II of the American With Disabilities Act (Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-17521, 2017 DJDAR 5982). Title II provides that no qualified individual with a disability “shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
Title II’s implementing regulations mandate that each facility constructed after January 26, 1992 be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” And, for each facility “altered after January 26, 1992,” the altered portion must, “to the maximum extent feasible,” be likewise accessible. The Federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board creates nonbinding Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to ensure compliance with Title II, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) adopt its own binding regulations, consistent with the ADAAG standards. Here, the District Court interpreted ADAAG standards as not applying to public rights-of-way, parks, and playground facilities. The District Court concluded that none of Kirola’s experts were reliable in their interpretation of the standards and how the standards applied to the public rights-of-way, etc. Conversely, the District Court concluded that all of the city’s experts were reliable. It thus disregarded and discarded every ADAAG violation identified by Kirola’s experts, accepting only the small number of violations identified by the city’s experts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard E. Morton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Morton may be contacted at
rmorton@hbblaw.com
Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism
May 10, 2021 —
Bert Hummel - Lewis BrisboisAtlanta Partner Bert Hummel was recently appointed to the Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism (CJCP) for the 2020-2021 term. In this role, Mr. Hummel has assisted in carrying out the charge of the CJCP, namely, to enhance professionalism among Georgia’s lawyers. Mr. Hummel’s appointment follows his participation on the Grants Committee and the Professionalism Committee of the CJCP. In addition, Mr. Hummel was selected as one of seven members of CJCP’s Benham Awards Subcommittee, which recognizes Georgia attorneys who dedicate their practice or time to serving the public and profession.
“I am honored to be appointed to a body that continually strives to do so much good for both the legal profession and the community at large. For the past several months, I have appreciated the work the Commission has undertaken to promote professionalism in the practice of law through educational programming while also promoting community service programs through the CJCP’s Grants Committee that I served on as well. I look forward to continuing to serve with my colleagues at the CJCP to promote our shared goals. I also relish the opportunity to serve during a time in which professionalism is of the utmost importance as we navigate through the COVID-19 pandemic made even more unique and special by the fact this is the last year Chief Justice Melton will serve as chair after announcing his retirement from the Supreme Court effective at the end of the Bar year.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bert Hummel, Lewis BrisboisMr. Hummel may be contacted at
Bert.Hummel@lewisbrisbois.com
CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces
August 20, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs more and more online home improvement marketplaces like Angie’s List come online, questions have arisen as to whether such online marketplaces must hold a contractor’s license. The California Contractor’s State License Board has put together a “Fast Facts” sheet to help online home improvement marketplaces navigate the ins and outs of contractor’s license requirements, salesperson requirements, and advertising requirements. The short answer is that these marketplaces do not need a contractor’s license as long as the customer is contracting directly with the listed contractors (not the marketplace). Here’s the slightly longer explanation:
July 20, 2018 CSLB #18-10
CSLB Hopes to Clear Up Confusion about License and Contracting Requirements for Online Home Improvement Marketplace Companies
SACRAMENTO – Over the past few months, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) has been addressing emerging issues involving online marketplaces and contractor referral websites. In its most basic form, online marketplaces are e-commerce websites that link consumers to products and/or services that are provided by multiple third parties. In these situations the e-commerce operator processes the transactions. Many referral websites charge contractors for leads.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
The Woodland Hills Office Secures a Total Defense Award on Behalf of their High-End Custom Home Builder Client!
June 04, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPartner Daniel Crespo and Associate Theresa Mallen secured a total defense award in arbitration. Our client is a high-end custom home builder with a decades-long flawless record of museum quality construction. Our client was accused of performing substandard construction and the homeowners asserted a multiple million-dollar cost of repair. We took a zero-liability position and argued that the alleged defects were not defects at all but were rather mere reflections of an incomplete project. In sum, our client was forced to terminate the contract and cease construction due to the homeowners’ failure to make progress payments as they became due. The arbitration endured 16 days of testimony scattered over the course of 7 months.
Ultimately, the arbitrator ruled that there were no construction defects at the project and that the homeowners “shall take nothing.” The arbitrator also ruled in favor of our client on its affirmative claim for monies owed by the homeowners’ breach of contract plus interest. A total victory for our client.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii
January 06, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court ultimately stayed a construction defect case, but offered comments on the current status of coverage disputes for such defects in Hawaii. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Simpson Mfg. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128481(D. Haw. Nov. 7, 2011).
National Union filed a complaint for declaratory relief to establish it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Simpson Manufacturing Company in four actions pending in the Hawaii state courts. The state court actions concerned allegedly defective hurricane strap tie hold downs that were manufactured and sold by Simpson. The hurricane ties allegedly began to prematurely corrode and rust, causing cracking, spalling and other damage to homes.
National Union contended the underlying allegations did not constitute "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," as defined in the policies.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
