Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage
March 14, 2018 —
Alan Packer and Graham Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPUnfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in
Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense.
In
Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage.
After the
Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense.
The key issue before the
Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued.
In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the
Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may
potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid.
While
Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs.
Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under
Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later.
Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com.
Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com.
ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating.
For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
West Coast Casualty’s 25th Construction Defect Seminar Has Begun
May 16, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe first day of this year’s West Coast Casualty Seminar has concluded, with two more days ahead to learn, network, and discuss the construction defect industry’s current trends.
Don’t forget to stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associate’s exhibit so that you can participate in their Sink a Putt for Charity Golf Challenge. As in the past, attendees can participate for free in the BHA golf challenge and win a $25 Amazon gift card, and for every successful putt made, BHA will make a $25 cash donation in the golfer’s name to be distributed equally between each worthy organization. This year, participant’s efforts on the green will help benefit three cancer fighting institutions that are dedicated to treating and eradicating children’s cancer: Hawaii’s Children’s Cancer Foundation, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, and Shriners Hospital for Children. BHA is also raffling Dodger’s tickets, so you won’t want to miss their exhibit. You may read more about this year’s exhibit at
BHA HAS A NICE SWING and take a look back at previous exhibits,
20 YEARS OF BHA AT WEST COAST CASUALTY'S CD SEMINAR: CHRONICLING BHA'S INNOVATIVE EXHIBITS.
Want some help maximizing your work-play schedule? Check out
CDJ’s Sample Itinerary to get the Most out of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar that includes the seminar schedule as well as dining and event suggestions. We also have included suggestions for exploring the Greater Anaheim area:
BEYOND THE DISNEYLAND RESORT: DINING,
BEYOND THE DISNEYLAND RESORT: SPECIAL EVENTS,
BEYOND THE DISNEYLAND RESORT: MUSEUMS, and
BEYOND THE DISNEYLAND RESORT: WORLD CLASS SHOPPING EXPERIENCES.
Last week, Don MacGregor wrote a not-to-be-missed piece on
THE EVOLUTION OF CONSTRUCTION DEFECT TRENDS AT WEST COAST CASUALTY SEMINAR.
Thursday, this year’s West Coast Casualty awards will be presented. To learn more about these coveted awards, please see
A LOOK BACK AT THE OLLIES and
AN ERA OF LEGENDS.
We hope you enjoy days two and three of the seminar!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe Federal District Court in Virginia found that allegations of faulty workmanship could arise from an occurrence. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Strongwell Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79163 (W. D. Va. June 4, 2013).
Strongwell supplied certain fiberglass reinforced plastic materials to a subcontractor of Black & Veatch for a construction project at power plant. Black & Veatch subsequently sued Strongwell, claiming that numerous defects in Strongwell's materials and work were discovered after the project was completed. The complaint further alleged that as a result of the defects, there was widespread property damage to portions of the power plant.
Nautilus defended under a reservation of rights. Nautilus also filed suit for a declaratory judgment that to establish it had no duty to defend or indemnify Strongwell. Strongwell moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as it requested a declaration that there was no duty to defend. Strongwell also filed a motion to stay the coverage action until the underlying case was completed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court
May 01, 2023 —
George Leahy - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (April 25, 2023) - On Monday, April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals by several major energy companies that sought to remove lawsuits filed by state and local governments from state court into federal court. The Court’s
certiorari denials reject companies’ appeals in five separate cases, which involved claims brought by municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Each municipality claims that it has been harmed by the effects of climate change, allegedly attributed to the companies’ carbon emissions.
The Court’s denials effectively allow the lawsuits to continue in state court, often seen as favorable for plaintiffs due to a greater potential for jury trials and associated damages awards than might be available in federal court. Following a
2021 Supreme Court ruling in a related case that granted the companies an additional chance to argue that their cases should be heard in federal court, the lower federal appeals courts in each of the five cases concluded that the companies had not established sufficient grounds to establish proper venue and jurisdiction in federal court. The Supreme Court’s April 24 denial leaves those decisions unaltered, allowing the lawsuits to continue in state court for further consideration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
George Leahy, Lewis Brisbois
“But I didn’t know what I was signing….”
May 30, 2018 —
Bobby Kethcart - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn real estate cases—which frequently involve long purchase agreements, loan documents, personal guarantees, deeds of trust, etc.—we’ve likely all had a client or opposing party who trots out the line that they didn’t know what they were signing, or they didn’t read or understand what they were signing, so the document shouldn’t be enforced according to its terms.
Most of us instinctively believe the claim is a loser: You signed the document, you’re bound by it.
But is this actually right?
Well, we did some digging. Here is the Arizona law on the subject:
Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 658 P.2d 210 (App. 1982):
“A mistake of only one of the parties to a contract in the expression of his agreement or as to the subject matter does not affect its binding force and ordinarily affords no ground for its avoidance, or for relief, even in equity.”
“A manifestation of acceptance to the offeror or his agent forms a contract regardless of the intent of the acceptor.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bobby Kethcart, Snell & WilmerMr. Kethcart may be contacted at
rkethcart@swlaw.com
Hard to Believe It, Construction Law Musings is 16
January 07, 2025 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOn this date back in 2008 (wow, that seems so long ago), I began Construction Law Musings on the Blogger platform with a brief announcement. Little did I know that this corner of the internet (or is it Blawgosphere?) would still be around in 2024!
In the time since I made that short entry 16 years ago (I know, I can’t believe it either), I’ve met several construction lawyers here in Virginia who refer to me as the “blog guy.” To be recognized for the work I do here at Construction Law Musings, something that benefits me (and I hope the readers), and which I do for the fun of it, is an honor.
The blog has since taken on a life of its own in many respects, allowing me to meet some of the great construction pros who have provided a guest post or two for Musings and added their different perspectives. Musings also kept me up on at least most of the trends in Virginia construction law by making me post consistently (though sometimes less consistently than others). Now, around 975 posts and 16 years later, I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed and effort has been put into what started on a whim and the plan that I’d post thoughts on the legal landscape and construction from the perspective of a Virginia construction lawyer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFMartha Johnson, the head of the General Services Administration, has said that her agency will not be building any new buildings in the near future. Among other duties, the GSA is responsible for the building, renovating, and leasing of federal office space. The White House had proposed $840 million in new construction, the Senate only $56 million. The House did not appropriate any money for the agency to use for new construction.
In addition to cutbacks on new buildings, Congress is suggesting only $280 million in repairs of existing government buildings. In order to cut back, the GSA has dropped plans to renovate their own offices in favor of renovations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
