Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails
December 01, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court disagreed with the insurer's attempt to limit additional insured status based upon the contract between the parties. Mays v. In re All C-Dive LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185874 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2017).
Five employees of C-Dive LLC filed a lawsuit after belng injured in a pipeline explosion aboard a vessel servicing a pipeline owned by Gulf South Pipeline Company. During the work, there was a release of gas that caused an explosion and injured the employees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion
April 06, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe magistrate's recommended decision found that damage to plaintiffs' home caused by boats that became loose during Hurricane Sandy was not barred as "water borne material" under the surface water exclusion. Spindler v. Great N. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16532 (E.D. N. Y. Feb. 2, 2016).
Plaintiffs' home abutted the East Bay. The property had an exterior deck and a long dock that floated on the bay. Hurricane Sandy damaged plaintiffs' home and dock. A neighbor witnessed two boats, driven by the storm, repeatedly strike plaintiffs' dock, house, and deck. There was no dispute that water infiltrated plaintiffs' yard prior to the entry of the boats. Plaintiffs spent $286,280 to repair damaged items from the storm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story
July 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJuly 31, 2014 marks the 21st anniversary of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA). The company commenced operations on this date 21 years ago today. During the last two decades, the landscape of the construction defect industry as a whole has shifted significantly. In the early nineties, the industry consisted substantially of multi-family residential projects, and construction defect litigation was a regional concern focused primarily on Southern California.
In the intervening 21 years, the construction defect industry has become a nationwide concern with the majority of states adopting builders’ right to repair legislation. To mark the 21st anniversary of BHA, we spoke with some of the key personnel to get some insights and impressions of how the industry and the company have evolved throughout the years.
On July 31st, 1993, Bert formed the company after a long career as a general contractor. He had become involved in the construction forensics field in 1988, providing general construction investigation and expert support services to legal professionals handling multifamily residential cases.
James Howe, the firm's current President and Chief Operating Officer, joined the company in November 1993. Previously, he had been recruited by The New York Times and served as operations manager for their Orange County, Los Angeles, and Inland Empire operations.
In January of 1994, operations were relocated to a small, 1,100-square foot, two-story walk-up in Anaheim Hills, California. James stated that they purchased furniture from Plummers, and he and Bert carted all of the furniture up the stairs and assembled it themselves over the weekend.
Immediately, they hired the first employee, Matthew J. Nardella, an architect and graduate from Cal Poly University, who also came to the firm with substantial construction and design experience.
Matt was scheduled to begin work on January 17th, 1994, the day of the Northridge earthquake. “I remember calling Bert,” Matt said. “‘Bert, is everything okay down there? Do you want me to come in?’ All of the news said freeways collapsed. I didn’t know what was going on with the roads,” Matt continued. “Bert’s like, ‘Yeah, nothing happened here, get over here.’ I said, ‘Okay, I’ll be there.’” Matt chuckled at the memory.
Even back in early 1994, Bert was in high demand as an expert witness. “He was everyone’s go-to-guy,” Matt Nardella stated. “The day a case was filed they would call him first.”
“He had a real desire,” Susan Howe, BHA’s Chief Executive Officer, said. “The primary way Bert worked on growing the business was by showing up, being prepared, and being full of ideas. If there was a problem or an issue, he would come up with a solution on how to handle it in the scope of what we were doing. He identified solutions and provided additional benefits to his clients. That’s how he grew the business, really. He grew each individual relationship.”
During that period, the type and scope of projects began to shift into a more diversified mix, including hotels, resorts, warehouses, storage facilities, restaurants, and more, though, at the time, BHA mainly provided expert witness support in construction defect cases involving attached housing developments, such as condominiums and townhomes.
Many of the other current key employees within the firm were hired during the mid-90s and continue with the firm today. Don MacGregor, John B. A. Mancini, and Jorge Porter were hired during this period. “The business was growing quickly and constantly from the moment I walked in the door,” Don MacGregor said, speaking of his early days with BHA. “Within just a few months of me being hired, the firm added six additional architects, engineers, and design professionals to meet client demands.”
Between 1995 and 1996, the company moved to a larger office (about 2,000 square feet), then added an additional 1,000 square feet of office space by adding on an adjoining unit. However, by 1997, James started looking for new, bigger office space. It was during this time that the firm’s current Chief Executive Officer joined the company.
Susan G. Howe left an executive position at a Newport Beach based business bank to focus her energy full time on the company's financial affairs and regulatory compliance issues.
When James walked in to what is now the firm’s Corporate Headquarters at 5415 E. La Palma in Anaheim Hills, it seemed enormous. At 5,500 square feet, it was twice the size of the modest current office. The space had previously been built out by American Express Travel Related Services.
In 1998, shortly after moving operations to Anaheim Hills, another key person in the BHA story joined the firm, Mark Chapman. "I remember interviewing Mark and feeling strongly that he was destined to become a recognized presence within this industry,” James Howe stated. “I was particularly intrigued with his dual credentials. Being a licensed professional engineer and a licensed general contractor provided the credibility he needed to speak to both civil engineering issues and general contracting or cost issues. This seemed like a win-win for the client. He was also a very strong negotiator coming in, and I respected that," James mused.
Mark recalled the recruitment process and his early discussions with James. "The job at BHA was different and intriguing enough to get me to make what ultimately turned out to be the right decision,” Mark stated. “I had been concerned with design for most of my career, but was interested in this highly specialized niche industry. I knew the industry existed, but it was still highly specialized at the time. I had no idea that I could make a career out of it. Nor did I realize that my skill set as an engineer and contractor was the perfect fit to handle the multi-faceted analysis that is sometimes required. The combination of design analysis, field work, meetings, and mediations turned out to be a refreshing career change.
"Working with Bert was a learning experience I will always remember and cherish,” Mark said. “He always said his door was open anytime I needed anything. When I did have a question, he would always take whatever time was needed to listen, think about it, and give me an answer. I was always impressed because not only did he always have an answer, it was always the right answer. Bert made me feel like family. I knew I had made it and gained his confidence when I walked into his office one day and asked his opinion and he simply said ‘You can handle it, I trust you.’ The past 16 years of my life have been the most rewarding personally and professionally. I owe it mostly to my experience at BHA, the Howe family's generosity, and my associates. It takes a great team to be successful. No one can do it by themselves.”
Soon enough, the once cavernous space was too small. The company was still growing, and arrangements were made to lease the adjoining unit, 5413, doubling the corporate office's footprint to a little over 12,000 square feet. James wondered if the firm would once again fill the new space: “Again, it seemed big at the time,” James said. “Somehow we filled it up, and now we’re busting out of it.”
John Springman joined BHA in June of 2000. John had worked with Bert throughout the years on several cases, John as the architectural expert and Bert as the general contracting/cost designee. They had worked so well together, that Bert spent a year or two recruiting him to join BHA.
By this time, Bert, Susan, and James had expanded their vision from only Bert as an expert witness, to BHA becoming a ‘multi-disciplinary’ firm with experts in differing fields. “At first, [Bert’s] primary form of testimony was cost estimating and standard of care for general contracting practices,” Susan said, “but he soon realized the value in developing a construction experts group comprising licensed architects, engineers, roofing and waterproofing experts, and building envelope specialists."
Susan explained how innovative the one-stop shop philosophy was back then. “[Bert] had not only to recruit John Springman and people like him, but we had to communicate the synergies, cost and productivity benefits to our existing client base, because it was innovative and different.”
However, it didn’t take long for BHA’s clients to reap the great benefits having access to a multi-disciplinary integrated support solution offered: “We were able to provide cost savings to our clients, because we were collecting the data and sharing it to all of the different disciplines within our own organization,” Susan said.
In the early 2000s, the projects began changing from condominium developer cases to single-family home cases. According to John, “The insurance industry started to write in exclusions for condominiums. Forced to go elsewhere for business, it went to single family homes.”
Also around this time, the Aas court decision changed the construction defect industry in California. The court ruled that you have to have damage to have a claim. “Just because a code wasn’t followed didn’t matter unless damage occurred from it,” John said. “It is under breach of contract and other things, but not negligence. Insurance covered negligence, so it took away insurance coverage. Then SB 800 [California’s Right to Repair Act] came about and took a lot of those things and brought them back in.”
While continuing to grow its California market, in 1999 BHA extended its reach into other regions beginning with Nevada and Arizona. By 2003, their reach extended to the east coast with satellite offices in Ohio, Kentucky, and South Carolina.
The types of projects BHA handled also diversified. BHA continued their work with production housing and condominiums and other attached housing, and they supplemented this work with cases involving high-rise and mid-rise buildings, hospitals, hotels, schools and universities, religious institutions, sprawling custom homes, retail complexes, as well as handling delay claims, premises liability, trip-and-fall cases, worker compensation files, and others.
Susan recalled one of BHA’s first international cases that involved a mining operation in Chile. “The core of it was construction defect, but our main job was design analysis and estimating on a really huge scale,” Susan said. The firm was engaged directly through AIG. “An adjuster there contacted Bert at the West Coast Casualty seminar, a few weeks later Bert and half of the office were in Santiago. It was a very memorable assignment; I remember the litigation part of the case was handled largely in the capital city of Santiago. But the mining operations were quite remote. Each of our employees had to undergo altitude testing prior to being performing site investigations at the mining and processing facilities.”
By 2010, BHA had grown to a staff of over forty associates, with satellite offices across the country to support the growing regional businesses. However, in September of 2011, BHA’s beloved founder and President Bert Howe passed away after suffering a heart attack.
While Bert’s presence is still missed by the associates and, most especially, his wife and son, the company was well-positioned to continue on. Susan explained that James for about five years before Bert’s death had been slowly deleveraging Bert from the business. “He was helping his father to be able to work less,” Susan stated. “And as a result of that, we had all these great people like Matt Nardella, John Springman, Mark Chapman, Brad Hughes, John Tolman, Charlie Miller, Jerry Miles, and others who had significant tenure with the firm. They had all worked very closely with Bert, and had really matured, and now they had a few extra gray hairs."
So what’s next for Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.? Susan sees greater technological changes, as well as diversification in the types of projects, and the ability to offer additional value added services to their clients.
James stated that BHA has the capability to competitively enter new markets providing a superior credibility, cost, and customer service proposition. “Leveraging from our smart office techniques, proprietary construction forensics technologies, and mature business processes, we could effectively go into any regional market as efficiently as any other company, more efficiently than most, and bring a great deal of value to clients with minimal capital investment in these various markets.”
James also sees more opportunities for career BHA employees who are ready to take on new responsibilities. “I would like to see, and I’m trying to create, new opportunities and challenges for people to continue to be upwardly mobile,” James said. “I am energized by the prospect of delivering additional value to clients, and providing additional opportunities for key people here to grow and improve their lives economically through the growth of the company."
BHA currently is comprised of sixty employees, serving clients throughout the U.S. with offices in Anaheim Hills, California; Sacramento, California; San Diego, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; Miami, Florida; Houston, Texas; and San Antonio, Texas.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: Recent Legal Developments at Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts
December 18, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a review of initial Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Courts oral arguments and other matters in October 2022.
Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court
Michael Sackett, et ux., v. Environmental Protection Agency
The Supreme Court’s 2022 term began on October 3, 2022, with this important oral argument. For many years, the petitioner has encountered EPA opposition to the construction of a home on his property located near a lake in Idaho. The agency insists that the land is subject to federal regulatory jurisdiction, in that a Clean Water Act permit will be needed before work can proceed. Several courts have already weighed in on this issue; whether the land in question is considered a regulated “wetlands” pursuant to the “significant nexus” test developed by the Court in the Rapanos case decided in 2006. The oral argument was fairly long and spirited. The justices appear to believe that the “significant nexus” is unworkable because in many instances it provides little or no guidance to landowners as to whether their property may be subject to federal jurisdiction, and thus subject to civil and even criminal penalties. Justice Kavanaugh remarked that “this case is going to be important for wetlands throughout the country and we have to get it right.” Later, Justice Gorsuch lamented the fact that implementing a test for federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act test is so difficult to apply: “If the federal government doesn’t know [if a property is adjacent to navigable water and is regulated,] “does a reasonable landowner have any idea.” The issue is very difficult to resolve, and the Congress has indicated that is has no interest in entering this regulatory thicket.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance
July 10, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined there was a duty to defend negligence and private nuisance claims for dumping materials on the plaintiffs' property. Peters Heavy Construction, Inc. v. X-Pert One Tracking Corp., 2018 Wisc. App. LEXIS 358 (Wis. Ct. App. March 29, 2018).
Peters Heavy Construction sued X-Pert One for negligently depositing shingle materials, tires, and other solid materials on Peters' property, causing damage to Peters, including loss of use of portions of the property. Peters also alleged that X-Pert One's actions negligently created a private nuisance causing harm to Peters' property. X-Pert One's insurer, Northfield Insurance Company, was also sued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud
February 20, 2023 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordLondon-based geotechnical contracting giant Keller Group's profits from its Australia business unit may have been fraudulently inflated by the U.S. equivalent of as much as $20 million in today’s dollars since 2019, the company has revealed.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts
February 18, 2020 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPotential damages in a lawsuit may come in many forms depending on the facts of the case. Common damages include medical expenses, loss of earnings, property loss, physical pain, and mental suffering. Of the many damages Plaintiffs may claim, one of the most prevalent and recognizable is property damage. This article briefly discusses these types of damages which fall under two major categories – Real Property and Personal Property.
Broadly speaking, “real property” means land, and “personal property” refers to all other objects or rights that may be owned. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “real property” as: “Such things as are permanent, fixed, and immovable; lands, tenements, and hereditaments of all kinds, which are not annexed to the person or cannot be moved from the place in which they subsist. . . .” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3d ed. 2010).) “Personal property” is defined as: “Money, goods, and movable chattels . . . . All objects and rights which are capable of ownership
except freehold estates in land, and incorporeal hereditaments issuing thereout, or exercisable within the same.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
Real Property
Real property may be damaged or “harmed” through trespass, permanent nuisance, or other tortious conduct. The general rule is that Plaintiffs may recover the lesser of the two following losses: (1) the decrease in the real property’s fair market value; or (2) the cost to repair the damage and restore the real property to its pre-trespass condition plus the value of any lost use. (Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.) However, an exception to this general rule may be made if a Plaintiff has a personal reason to restore the real property to its former condition, sometimes called the “personal reason” exception. In such cases, a Plaintiff may recover the restoration costs even if the costs are greater than the decrease in the real property’s value, though the restoration cost must still be “reasonable” in light of the value of the real property before the injury and the actual damage sustained.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel
April 14, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Centex Homes, No. C 10-02757 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011), general contractor Centex was sued by homeowners for construction defects. Centex tendered its defense to Travelers as an additional insured under policies issued by Travelers to two Centex subcontractors. Travelers agreed to defend Centex under a reservation of rights and selected defense counsel to defend Centex. Centex refused to accept the defense, asserting that it was entitled to select defense counsel. Travelers filed suit against Centex seeking a declaratory judgment that Centex had breached the duty to cooperate condition in the Travelers’ policy.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
