Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss
March 23, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Texas judge has ruled that Hunton Andrews Kurth is entitled to coverage from Great Northern Insurance Co., a unit of Chubb, Ltd. (“Chubb”), for losses its predecessor firm suffered when Hurricane Harvey closed its Houston office and disrupted business in 2017.
The court agreed with Hunton’s position that the policy, written specifically for a law firm, covered its business income loss until the firm’s operations were restored to their pre-loss levels. The court rejected in its entirety Chubb’s argument that coverage lasted only until the physical damage that closed the building had been repaired. Rather, siding with Hunton, the court found that the policy language affords, in addition to ordinary business income coverage during the damage period, “extended period” coverage that commences after the damaged property is repaired and after the firm’s operations resume.
From August 27 to August 31, 2017, the firm was forced to close its Houston office due to flooding and damage caused by Hurricane Harvey. While employees were permitted to return to the office on August 31, income did not return to its pre-loss level until September 14, 2017. The firm submitted a claim to Chubb for the loss sustained from August 27 to September 14, but Chubb paid only for income loss suffered during the 3-day closure period, and refused to cover the loss suffered after the building reopened.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers
March 05, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsYou know how I’ve stated on many occasions that the contract is king here in Virginia? You know how that included contractual provisions waiving mechanic’s lien rights for subcontractors and suppliers? You know how I thought that the General Assembly would not do anything to make mechanic’s liens in Virginia easier to prosecute?
Well, it seems, at least for waivers of mechanic’s lien rights by subcontractors and suppliers (more about general contractors later) I was wrong. This General Assembly session, the Senate introduced a bill, that has now passed both houses as of February 25, 2015, that adds language to Virginia Code Section 43-3 that effectively nullifies any contractual waiver of lien rights prior to any work having been performed by any tier of construction company aside from general contractors.
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
Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)
July 09, 2014 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law North CarolinaMy husband often travels the back roads between Chapel Hill and Fuquay Varina to visit friends. En route (a circuitous route that goes past Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, among other places), he passes by the “Friendly Grocery.”
[Sign]
No *Loitering*Littering*Alcoholic Beverages on Premises*Bike*Skateboard*
*10 minutes Parking Limit*Towing Enforced*
I’m not sure which is the “friendly” part of that sign. In fact, the sign seems to be the antithesis of friendly.
What does this have to do with your construction contracts? Sometimes, in an effort to please the client and/or secure the project, architects and engineers have the habit of being too friendly in their contract language. That is, you make promises or proposals that may promise too much of a good thing for the client. This can cause big problems. Bigger than being towed away from a rural grocery store in the middle of nowhere. You could be putting your insurance coverage at risk.
Have you ever promised to use “best efforts” in your design or plans? Promised to design to a specific LEED standard? Guaranteed 100% satisfaction? You might be putting your errors & omission coverage at issue. By warrantying or guaranteeing something, you are assuming a level of liability well beyond the standard of care required by law. By law, you only need to conform to the standard of care, and your insurance will only provide coverage up to that standard of care. In other words, if you make guarantees or promise “best efforts,” you are contracting to something that will *not* be insured. If something goes wrong, you will be without the benefit of your professional liability coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules
January 09, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn the course of my construction law practice, I have the pleasure of speaking with and talking to contractors and subcontractors that are based in Virginia and also based in other states. With the more nationalized construction landscape due to the constricted construction economy, I have more and more interaction with the latter category.
When I get a call from an out of state contractor (often when that construction company has an issue), one of my first questions is always whether that contractor has obtained its contractors license here in Virginia. In most cases, the answer is “Yes” and we can move on. However, in some instances, the answer is no and we have to discuss the potential consequences.
Among the consequences for failure to obtain the proper contractor license prior to performing work in Virginia are as follows:
- Inability to record a mechanic’s lien
- Possible criminal charges
- Possible inability to collect for construction work performed
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
Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?
March 22, 2017 —
Maggie Stewart - Colorado Construction Litigation On March 9, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced its decision in Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann Company, No. 16CA0101, 2017 COA 31 (Colo. App. Mar. 9, 2017). As a matter of first impression, the Court evaluated whether a senior living facility constitutes “residential property” protected by the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 ("HPA") provision of the Construction Defect Reform Act (CDARA).
In 2007, Plaintiff Broomfield entered into a contract with Defendant Brinkmann for construction of a senior assisted and independent living facility. The contract contained warranty provisions related to the quality of construction and cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure to provide Defendant with prompt notice of any defects would result in waiver of any claim for breach. The contract also limited Defendant Brinkmann’s liability by identifying three separate accrual provisions that would determine the time period in which Plaintiff could bring a claim. The project was completed in 2009.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Stewart may be contacted at
stewart@hhmrlaw.com
Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.
October 24, 2021 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn
Serpanok Construction, Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC, Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in Washington—whether a guarantor of a partially secured debt remains liable until the last dollar of the entire debt is paid off. After examining cases from other jurisdictions, the court held that that a guarantor is liable until the underlying debt is paid in full unless the agreement contains an express pay down provision. A pay down provision sets forth the guarantor’s right to reduce its obligation to the extent of any payment toward the debt, and it establishes that the guaranty applies only until an amount equivalent to the guaranteed amount is paid off.
The Serpanok decision addressed several other issues, but the published portion of this part-published case focused on whether an entity involved in a real estate development, Point Ruston LLC, was discharged from its guaranty obligation following a foreclosure sale where the proceeds did not cover the entire debt owed to a subcontractor. Point Ruston LLC, Point Ruston Phase II LLC (“Phase II”), and Century Condominiums (“Century”) were affiliated entities (collectively “Point Ruston parties”) that constructed retail and residential structures on a site in Point Ruston. Serpanok Construction Inc. (“Serpanok”) entered into subcontract agreements with Phase II and Century to perform concrete and steel work on a parking garage and movie theater for the project. Point Ruston LLC was not a party to either subcontract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits
February 27, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthReversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019).
While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client
January 02, 2019 —
Steven J. Pearse, Esq. & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerSenate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES.
California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern.
SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code.
This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation.
California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation.
The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
