Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Oregon Supreme Court has concluded that if it is possible that damage could have occurred prior to the completion of the project, then the policies in effect at that time are triggered. John Green of Farella Braun + Martel LLP writes that “we have long argued that, since the duty to defend exists if there is any ‘potential’ of covered liability, there is a potential that damage happened before that project was completed, or at any time after completion, triggering all policies in that time frame.” The Oregon court concluded that if property damage could have happened during construction, the insuerer had a duty to defend and “the insured had no burden to establish any additional facts to support that potential.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsRecently, my friend and fellow construction attorney/consultant, Chris Cheatham (@chrischeatham) posted the news that USGBC will be more stringent on the de-certification front. This statement relates to the continued energy performance of LEED certified buildings and increases the likelihood that energy performance (as opposed to mere reporting) could lead to de-certification.
I have discussed on several occasions the potential legal risks relating to green building. One of the big potential sources for such litigation (or “leedigation” as coined by Mr. Cheatham) is the possible de-certification of a previously certified building. With this latest statement by USGBC the specter of such de-certification seems even stronger.
Couple this potential with the fact that anyone can challenge the certification of a building at any time and contractors, subcontractors and other construction professionals face potential liability for the performance of a building in ways well beyond their control.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Treble Damages Awarded After Insurer Denies Coverage for Collapse
July 03, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's decision that a collapse was covered, but reversed the denial of treble damages to the insured. DENC, LLC v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10443 (4th Cir. April 18, 2022). The district court decision was summarized
here.
DENC owned The Crest, an apartment building leased to Elon University for student housing. Philadelphia Indemnity Company insured the property. In January 2018, students gathered on a second-floor breezeway for a party. Partygoers began jumping in the breezeway, which caused an abrupt collapse. Observers noticed that the breezeway was hanging down by more that a foot.
DENC filed a claim with Philadelphia the next day. An adjuster was sent to inspect the breezeway. By that time, the city had condemned The Crest. The adjuster said that undiscovered "water damage which occurred over an extended period of time" caused the loss.
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
Florida Courts Inundated by Wave of New Lawsuits as Sweeping Tort Reform Appears Imminent
April 03, 2023 —
John A. Rine - Lewis BrisboisTampa, Fla. (March 22, 2023) – Plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout Florida are rushing to file lawsuits in anticipation of sweeping tort reform legislation. It has been reported that some plaintiffs’ firms in the Sunshine State have filed hundreds – and in some cases thousands – of new lawsuits this week ahead of the potential enactment of the bill. It has also been reported that this record number of new suits being filed is causing difficulty and failures in some court computer systems.
These plaintiffs’ attorneys are panicked by HB 837. This bill will potentially provide the most radical tort reform the state has seen in several decades. The specific revisions to civil litigation are dramatic. For instance, the statute of limitations would be cut in half, from four years to two years. Additionally, insurance carriers would be immune from claims of bad faith if they tender the limits within 90 days of notice of a claim. Carriers will also enjoy numerous new protections from bad faith litigation even where there is no tender in the first 90 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John A. Rine, Lewis BrisboisMr. Rine may be contacted at
John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.com
Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel
February 25, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit determined that the trial court did not err by refusing to give preclusive effect to findings made in the underlying state-court action because there was no collateral estoppel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharif, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2114 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014).
Bashir's owned a grocery and was insured by Nationwide. The decedent was accidentally killed by a pistol stored under the cash register. The decedent's personal representative sued Bashir in state court. Nationwide declined to defend because it maintained that the employment exclusion applied to bar coverage.
The personal representative argued two alternative claims, the first assuming the decedent was not an employee of Bashir's and the second assuming that he was. The state court granted a motion to dismiss the second claim that the decedent was an employee. In a subsequent trial, judgment was awarded against Bashir and another defendant in the amount of $950,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners
July 09, 2014 —
Stephen A. Sunseri - Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPToday, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies.
In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories.
The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury.
Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"
December 15, 2016 —
Ellen Burrows – White and Williams LLPCalling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1]
In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLPMs. Burrows may be contacted at
burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com
Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”
June 10, 2024 —
Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute ResolverIn the construction industry, arbitration is a frequently agreed-upon and utilized dispute resolution method. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., provides the underpinning and framework for how courts should handle litigation in connection with arbitration agreements. Where a party asserts that a claim brought in court should be subject to arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA provides that the action should be stayed. However, some courts have entertained a party’s request to dismiss a suit where the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, creating a circuit split in the federal appeals courts. In
Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 WL 2193872, issued on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court held that, absent some other defect (such as the lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction), Section 3 of the FAA requires a court which finds a claim is subject to an arbitration must stay the lawsuit during the arbitration proceedings rather than dismissing the action.[1] In so doing, the Court addressed a question that for years it left unanswered.
While most Circuits held, prior to Smith, that Section 3 requires a court to stay the litigation pending an arbitral award; the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits each held that a court could dismiss an action in lieu of staying.
In Smith, both parties acknowledged the underlying claims were arbitrable, but when the district court compelled arbitration, the court dismissed the action rather than staying the court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit (relying on its prior precedent) affirmed, with two judges noting that the Ninth Circuit’s approach was incorrect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLPMr. Witry may be contacted at
bwitry@lauriebrennan.com
