Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes
September 20, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWe now know and can appreciate the threat of hurricanes. Not that we did not appreciate the reality of hurricanes–of course we did–but Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma created the type of actual devastation we fear because they hit close to home. The fear came to life, creating panic, anxiety, and uncertainty. It is hard to plan for a force majeure event such as a hurricane because of the capriciousness of Mother Nature. But, we need to do so from this point forward. No exception! And, I mean no exception!!
A force majeure event is an uncontrollable event that cannot be anticipated with any degree of definitiveness. The force majeure event will excusably delay or hinder performance obligations under a contract. One type of force majeure event is a hurricane—an uncontrollable and unforeseen act of Mother Nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFHousing Wire reported that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) “is pushing for an exception for Realtors in the current rules on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technology since their motives don’t disrupt safety concerns, according to a letter sent on Tuesday to the FAA.”
According to Housing Wire, the NAR believes that real estate professionals would benefit from UAV technology, more commonly referred to as drones, in a variety of ways, “including, law enforcement, environmental scanning, geographical surveys and disaster recovery assessments.”
The NAR stated, as quoted in Housing Wire, “Use of UAV technology by the real estate industry is simple compared to other applications such as land surveying or law enforcement. The use of UAV technology would be limited in scope to the property itself. Properly written regulation would permit the use of UAV technology within the real estate industry, while maintaining safety in the NAS and privacy of citizens.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule
February 28, 2022 —
Jared De Jong, Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsFor decades, an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law was determined exclusively by reviewing the insurance contract and the allegations of the complaint under the “eight-corners rule.” All of this changed last week when, in a long-awaited decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the existence of coverage in certain limited situations. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 21-0232, 2022 WL 413940 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022).
In Monroe, a drilling contractor was sued for damages arising out of the allegedly botched drilling of an irrigation well. The underlying lawsuit alleged that negligent drilling caused damage to surrounding farmland. However, the complaint did not allege when the damage occurred. The contractor’s insurers, BITCO General Insurance Corporation (“Bitco”) and Monroe Guarantee Insurance Company (“Monroe”) disputed whether Monroe owed a duty to defend. Although Bitco agreed to provide a defense, Monroe refused, arguing that the property damage happened before its policy period. Bitco sued Monroe for contribution. In the trial court, the insurers stipulated that a drill bit became stuck before Monroe’s policy incepted, a fact that would have supported Monroe’s “prior damage” defense. On summary judgment, though, the trial court ruled this stipulated fact could not be considered under Texas’ eight-corners rule. Monroe appealed, and the Fifth Circuit, which had previously endorsed an exception to the eight-corners rule under Northfield Insurance Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523, 531 (5th Cir. 2004), certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears,
Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse
January 10, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute
August 14, 2018 —
David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPWhen a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines.
In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claims Against Contractor
March 19, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe U. S. District Court found there was no coverage for breach of contract claims against the contractor who walked off the job before completing the project. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Snider, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16920 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2014).
The homeowners hired Jeff Beale to build their home for an approximate cost of $650,000. Beale said the job would take six to eight months and construction would be completed in early 2005. Construction did not begin, however, until April 2005. By 2005, the homeowners were becoming increasing displeased with Beale's progress. By March 2006, construction costs were approaching $800,000 and the home was not completed. The homeowners made progress payments on a monthly basis. Beale did not return to the home after April 2006 and another contractor was hired to complete the job.
When the homeowners moved in, they discovered several construction defects, including a cracked retaining wall and water intrusion in many areas of the home. They paid over $150,000 to repair the defects, to complete work Beale left unfinished, and remove mold.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Are COVID-19 Claims Covered by Builders Risk Insurance Policies?
May 04, 2020 —
Jason M. Adams, Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP and Cheryl L. Kozdrey, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.If you are an attorney, insurance broker, or other professional representing developers and contractors, then your clients have likely reached out with concerns about losses related to COVID-19. One common question is whether there is potential coverage under builders risk insurance policies.
The short answer is: It depends. As with most questions pertaining to insurance coverage, the answers depend on the specific policy language and underlying facts required to trigger coverage. Builders risk policies are even more fact specific due to the lack of uniformity of base policy forms and endorsements between insurance carriers.
The first step in any analysis is to gather facts and carefully document any impending and potential damages or delays. The facts are crucial because the coverage analysis may vary depending on the specific reason the project was shut down. For example, the analysis would be different if the project was shut down as a result of an express government order, such as those in Northern California and Washington, versus the project shutting down as a result of workers testing positive for COVID-19. Properly analyzing builders risk coverage involves a granular account of the facts and damages, and can require a great deal of hair splitting with respect to specific policy language.
Regardless of the strength of the insured’s facts and damages, or the breadth of its policy language, the policyholder still likely faces an uphill battle in finding coverage for COVID-19 related claims. The unfortunate reality of most builders risk policies is that they are property policies that require some evidence of physical loss or damage to trigger coverage. Whether or not COVID-19 claims constitute property damage will be the subject of great debate and litigation over the coming months and years. The outcome will likely depend on how the insured’s jurisdiction ultimately rules on the litany of COVID-19 cases that have already been filed – specifically, how broadly each court interprets the meaning of “physical loss or damage.”
Although these key issues have yet to be clearly defined by the courts, some policies are better than others and there are specific variables that could affect the likelihood of coverage. For example, some of the more policyholder-friendly insurance programs may contain coverage extensions for delay in completion, business interruption, loss of rental income, or civil authority that may not be tied to the property damage requirement, and which would tend to support coverage for COVID-19 claims.
Even if the insured crosses the initial threshold and can demonstrate a covered claim, the following common endorsements and exclusions may require additional analysis depending on the facts.
- Virus or Pandemic Exclusions: Virus or pandemic exclusions are not as common on builders risk policies as they may be on other forms of coverage. However, they do exist and, if present, result in a significant barrier to coverage. As with the policy itself, every endorsement is different and should be analyzed in terms of the express language contained in the endorsement and the facts.
- Abandonment or Cessation of Work: Most builders risk policies include provisions that preclude coverage in the event of the abandonment of the project or a lengthy cessation of work. As a result, the insured should take steps to articulate to the carrier that the project has not been abandoned, and that there exists an intent to return as soon as possible. The insured should also maintain a record of ongoing project oversight and protection efforts taken during the period when construction operations are suspended.
- Security and Safety Requirements: Many builders risk policies contain provisions requiring the insured to maintain protective safeguards and security protocols throughout the pendency of the project. Safety fencing, lighting and security guards are common examples. The policy should be analyzed to ensure that the policyholder can meet any such requirements during a COVID-19 related shutdown. For example, can the insured continue to staff a security guard? If not, arrangements will likely need to be made with the carrier depending on the language of the policy.
- Insurable Limits: Builders risk policies are typically underwritten based upon the total completed value of the structure, including materials and labor. The insured will need to analyze the policy to consider whether increased material or labor costs as a result of COVID-19 will alter the terms of coverage, trigger any escalation clauses, or result in an increase in premium due. If increased cost projections become apparent, the insured should report these changes to the carrier immediately.
- Extensions of Coverage: The insurance industry was facing a hard market even before the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in higher premiums and limited coverage options. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated these issues and it may be difficult to obtain coverage extensions on projects that have been shut down. The insured should work with its risk management team (risk manager, insurance broker and lawyer) to engage the carriers to negotiate any necessary coverage extensions resulting from COVID-19 related project delays.
To summarize, builders risk coverage for COVID-19 claims is far from certain, but not impossible. Insureds should provide notice of a claim to all potentially applicable carriers in order to preserve their rights. The insured should also report increased construction cost and articulate its intent to return to the project to preserve their escalation clause and avoid arguments that they have abandoned the project. The insured should continue to document its claims and damages, and be ready to substantiate its claims and push back on any coverage denial. Throughout the entirety of this process, the insured should work with its risk management team to get out in front of any extensions it may need to complete the project. In a climate where insurance carriers are receiving an insurmountable number of claims, the insured should be prepared to fight for coverage and not simply throw up its hands in the face of a denial. Given the intense social, legislative and executive pressure to cover COVID-19 claims, there may be a tendency for the courts to find coverage in gray areas, particularly if the insured was fortunate enough to have purchased one of the broader coverage forms referenced above.
About the Authors
Jason M. Adams, Esq. (jadams@gibbsgiden.com) is a partner at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management and Business/Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Jason represents developers, contractors, public entities, investors, lenders, REITs, design professionals, and other construction professionals at all stages of the construction process. Jason is a published author and sought-after speaker at seminars across the country regarding high level construction risk management and insurance topics. Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms.
Cheryl L. Kozdrey, Esq. (clk@sdvlaw.com) is an associate at Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., a national insurance coverage law firm dedicated exclusively to policyholder representation and advocacy. Cheryl advises insurance brokers, risk managers, and construction industry professionals regarding optimal risk transfer strategies and insurance solutions, including key considerations for Builder’s Risk, Commercial General Liability, D&O, and Commercial Property policies. She assists clients with initial policy reviews, as well as renewals and modification(s) of existing policies to ensure coverage needs are satisfied. Cheryl also represents policyholders throughout the claims process, and in coverage dispute litigation against insurance carriers. She is currently working on some of the largest construction defect cases in the country. Cheryl is a published author and is admitted to practice in the State of California and all federal district courts within the State.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Central Wins Authority to Take Land for High-Speed Rail System
October 03, 2022 —
Barclay Nicholson & Erica Gibbons - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogMove over luxury bus lines and quick flights. Central Texans should be on the lookout for bulldozers and train stops. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and related entities (collectively “Texas Central”) have eminent domain authority to acquire property for a proposed high-speed rail system between Dallas and Houston.
[1] Specifically, the Court held that the corporation qualifies as an “interurban electric railway company” under the Texas Transportation Code. This ruling grants Texas Central the broad condemnation authority to procure land for the project.
Texas Central has Statutory Authority to Take Land
The plaintiff in the matter, a farm owner with property south of Dallas along the proposed path of the bullet train, challenged the companies power to condemn land. The landowner’s declaratory judgment action challenged Texas Central’s eminent-domain authority. Under Texas law, condemnation power must be conferred by the legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication.
[2]
Here, Texas Central was created for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between Texas municipalities. The Court found that Texas Central is engaged in activities to further that purpose. Therefore, the Court concluded, that although legislators did not contemplate high-speed railways at the time of drafting the Transportation Code, Texas Central nonetheless qualified as “interurban electric railway companies” under the statute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Barclay Nicholson, Sheppard Mullin and
Erica Gibbons, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Nicholson may be contacted at bnicholson@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Gibbons may be contacted at egibbons@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
