CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

September 04, 2018 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.” Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

---

Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation

October 05, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Subrogation as a concept is well understood in insurance circles. According to the Institute of Risk Management Institute’s glossary of insurance terms subrogation is “the assignment to an insurer by the terms of [a] policy or by law, after payment of a loss, of the rights fo the insured to recover the amount of the loss from one legally liable for it.” In other words, if an insurer comes out of pocket for something someone else broke, the insurer can turn to that responsible party for reimbursement of its out of pocket costs. Typically, subrogation is, as stated in IRMI’s glossary of insurance terms, a matter of contract and the rights and responsibilities of parties are set forth within the terms of a policy. However, subrogation may, as stated in IRMI’s glossary, also be matter of law. And this is where equitable subrogation comes in. “Equitable subrogation,” according to IRMI, is “the right of subrogation granted under common law when one party has made a payment on behalf of another and becomes entitled to whatever recovery rights the other party has against a responsible third party.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

July 02, 2018 — Steven M. Charney & Charles F. Kenny - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
New Jersey is finally close to being among the many states with broad authority to develop or improve public projects through a Public-Private Partnership (P3) delivery method. This contracting model has stimulated growth and improvements in other States and led to the delivery of projects that may not otherwise have happened. Senate Bill 865 (“S-865”), after undergoing some last-minute amendments in a frenzied legislature dealing with budget and other critical issues, has passed in both houses of the Legislature and is waiting for Governor Murphy’s signature, which is expected shortly. The law will be effective 180 days from formal enactment. The administrative framework is now in place to make Public-Private Partnerships a reality in New Jersey. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Charney, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Charles F. Kenny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Kenny may be contacted at ckenny@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Enforceability of “Pay-If-Paid” Provisions Affirmed in New Jersey

January 04, 2023 — Levi W. Barrett, Michael S. Zicherman & Brian Glicos - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On December 7, 2022, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Superior Court decision in Jersey Precast v. Tricon Enterprises, Inc. et al., finding that the “pay-if-paid” clause in a material supplier’s purchase order with a general contractor was binding and enforceable. While clauses conditioning a general contractor’s obligation to pay its subcontractors on the general contractor’s receipt of payment from the project owner are not unique – this is the first time that a court in New Jersey has affirmed this practice in a published opinion. [1] Background The general contractor, Tricon, sent Jersey Precast its standard form purchase order for the supply of prestressed box beams to fulfill a public improvement contract with Union County. The reverse side of the form purchase order contained standard terms and conditions, and included a pay-if-paid clause drafted by Michael Zicherman, a partner of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. While Jersey Precast provided some draft revisions to the terms and conditions, Tricon never signed the purchase order and the proposed revisions were never accepted. Significantly, Jersey Precast did not attempt to modify the pay-if-paid provision. It later developed that the construction of the project became impossible, and the beams fabricated by Jersey Precast were not used. Tricon invoiced Union County for the cost of the beams, but the County failed to make payment and refused to accept delivery of the beams. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

October 04, 2021 — Jatin Patel - Newmeyer Dillion
It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer. In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM. PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jatin Patel, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Patel may be contacted at jatin.patel@ndlf.com

---

Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

March 09, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Construing an all-risk Businessowners Policy, the court found that the policy language did not required replacement of undamaged material match materials that were damaged. Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners' Ass'n v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2019 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1095 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019). The policy covered the Association's 14 townhome buildings. In June 2017, a hail storm damaged siding on all 14 buildings. An appraisal panel included the cost to replace the undamaged, faded siding in its appraisal award so that it would match the new siding. American Family refused to pay this component - which was appraised at about $211,382 - of the award. An exclusion in the policy provided,

We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.

We do not cover the loss in value to an property due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

December 02, 2015 — Yas Omidi – California Construction Law Blog
“No Escape” is a 2015 action movie starring Pierce Brosnan and Owen Wilson (that’s right, Owen Wilson) and which the folks at rogerebert.com described as “a dreadful…would-be thriller” and “low-grade trash.” It’s also, in short, the California Court of Appeal’s answer to a primary insurer’s recent bid to escape its duty to defend pursuant to an “other insurance” clause in a CGL policy in Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District (October 23, 2015). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yas Omidi, California Construction Law Blog
Ms. Omidi may be contacted at yomidi@wendel.com

---

The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

April 13, 2020 — Jeffrey M. Dennis & Heather H. Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
With the ongoing COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic and orders to “stay at home” in place across the United States, most organizations have been and continue to utilize remote arrangements. The software program known as “Zoom Meetings”, has become immensely popular as a means to facilitate meetings amongst employees, team members and other consultants rather than meeting in person. Despite such status, Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) has been named as a defendant in one of the first, and certainly the most high-profile, class action lawsuits to be filed in California alleging violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA). The Class Action The complaint filed alleges that Zoom did not protect the personal information of its users as it collected personal information and then shared such information to third parties, including Facebook, without adequate disclosures to users. The allegations specifically refer to Zoom’s boasting about its maintenance of users’ privacy and that they can be trusted with user data. Further, it is noted that there is no disclosure provided in the Zoom Privacy Policy that disclosed that personal information was being shared with Facebook and other third parties. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion and Heather H. Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---