Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance
August 31, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Santa Fe Braun v. Ins. Co. of North America (No. A151428, filed 7/13/20), a California appeals court relied on Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 215 (Montrose III), to hold that absent express policy wording to the contrary, horizontal exhaustion of all primary insurance is not required in order to trigger first-layer excess coverage.
Beginning in 1992, Braun was sued for asbestos injuries from refineries it constructed and maintained. Braun had primary coverage and multiple layers of excess coverage for the relevant time period. After defending for years, the primary insurers reached a settlement under which they paid their limits into a trust which would fund the ongoing defense and settlements. Certain of the excess insurers settled and also contributed to the trust.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)
October 02, 2023 —
Steve Swart - The Dispute Resolver"The most complex analyses grow beautifully simple as they become public objects.” Philip Rieff, Fellow Teachers (1973), quoted in JOHN BARTLETT, BARTLETT’S FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS 800 (Geoffrey O’Brien gen. ed., 18th ed. 2012)
In a recent ABA Forum on Construction Law Webinar, a panelist with substantial experience as an arbitrator explained that documents are the most important evidence in a construction dispute. Fact-finders, she said, focus on contemporaneous project records more than witness testimony to vet what happened.
But, even a small to mid-sized construction project can generate millions of pages of documents. That is particularly true when disputes involve loss of productivity, delay, acceleration, and disruption. The volume of records related to entitlement and damages (e.g., timesheets, accounting, equipment logs, schedule files, meeting minutes, etc.) can overwhelm and confuse — not to mention bore — the fact finder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steve Swart, Williams MullenMr. Swart may be contacted at
sswart@williamsmullen.com
Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause
January 26, 2017 —
Patrick McNamara - Porter Law GroupAny owner or general contractor who has a few projects under his or her belt has likely had this thought: “My contractor (or subcontractor) is not performing the way I expected; should I replace him?” The other side of the termination coin is: “This project is not going the way I expected; should I get out?”
While there may be an emotional high that immediately comes from terminating a contractor or subcontractor (or leaving a project, in mid-stream), there are many factors to be weighed, before making that decision.
Project Delay. Replacing a contractor or subcontractor that has already begun performance always results in delays to the project. Assessing the work in place, interviewing replacement contractors, and negotiating the terms of the new relationship can easily consume weeks, if not months of project time.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McNamara, Porter Law GroupMr. McNamara may be contacted at
pmcnamara@porterlaw.com
Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed
November 04, 2019 —
Mary Bacon - Construction ExecutiveClaims are inevitable in the construction industry. They can take on a life of their own and come with the burden of legal fees, wasted executive time and a possible judgment. Too often the only winners are the lawyers.
TIPS FOR PROTECTING MANAGEMENT AND THE BUSINESS BEFORE A CLAIM IS FILED
- Respect the business entity’s corporate structure. First and most importantly, respect the business entity’s corporate form. Legal entities have certain formalities like filing an annual list of officers, maintaining separate bank accounts, conducting certain meetings and following bylaws, etc. Respect these formalities. Failure to follow them exposes the owner to personal liability for company debts. And while a business claim has the potential to wipe out a business, owners should not risk having their personal assets on the line as well.
- Get a good contract. In most instances, a contract governs what happens and who is responsible for payment associated when a certain issue or dispute arises. A clear, well-written contract can often avoid a dispute or liability for a dispute. Actively participate in the contract negotiation and drafting process to make sure each party’s role and responsibilities are clearly accounted for.
- Make friends with clients. While it is true that “business is business,” people are often fairer and more willing to work towards a solution for people they are friends with. In most cases, friends will help friends in ways that people would not help mere business associates. When encountering a problem on a job, a friend may be willing to help achieve a more favorable outcome.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary Bacon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Bacon may be contacted at
mbacon@spencerfane.com
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy
June 09, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWhile construction can sometimes be risky, construction litigation is almost always expensive. This volatile mix of risk and expense has made risk shifting, through indemnity and insurance, a primary goal and concern of project owners, contractors and suppliers alike. Construction insurers know this all too well and insurers, even between themselves, seek to shift risk.
As one primary insurer found, however, risk shifting provisions in their policies – specifically, one which sought to shift the cost of defense to another insurer – is not without its limitations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule
January 07, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Bennet Susser. Bennet is a founding member and shareholder of the New Jersey law firm, Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C. He has over 25 years’ experience in representing clients in all types of complex (and not so complex) litigation, including those involving construction actions. His Construction Law Practice Group has deep experience in the representation of property owners, developers, homeowners, design professionals, materials manufacturers, contractors and subcontractors in connection with construction of high-rise and other residential developments, condominium conversions of older rental properties, commercial property, mixed-use projects, and governmental buildings. Issues handled include: construction defects and deficiencies related to residential and commercial construction, including roofing defects, water intrusion, and structural life safety; construction delays; liens; hurricane recovery and rebuilding; insurance coverage disputes, including negotiation and resolution of insurance claims related to rebuilding; mold and mildew claims; and construction contracts and related documents, including loan documentation.
Construction litigation often seeks to foist the culpable conduct of contractors and subcontractors upon an owner or developer of commercial or residential real property. Sometimes, such conduct is warranted, especially when the owner/developer has a significant role in the manner in which the construction project work is to be conducted. However, there are times when the general contractor is the party calling the shots. Why should an owner/developer be charged with the conduct of other independent contractors over whom no control was exercised? Under certain circumstances, such party may be insulated from liability based on the “independent contractor rule.” Put another way, general contractors’ and subcontractors’ status as independent contractors do not impute liability to an owner/developer for their alleged wrongful conduct under the principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability.
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
Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment
June 25, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent opinion in the property insurance coverage dispute, Bryant v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1232a (Fla. 4thDCA 2019), discusses the doctrine known as an insurer’s “confession of judgment.” In this case, an insured suffered water damage from a pipe leak. The insurer paid the insured $6,000 because of sublimits in the property insurance policy. There was a $5,000 sublimit for mold and a $1,000 sublimit for water leakage that occurs over a period of 14 days or more. The insured sued the insurer for covered water damage arguing that the sublimits did not apply.
After the lawsuit was filed, an agreed order was entered that stayed the case pending an appraisal. The appraisal award did not apply the $1,000 sublimit to the water damage from the pipe leak and segregated out damage for mold. (The insurer already paid the mold sublimit). The insurer ended up paying the appraisal award for the water damage caused by the pipe leak after deducting its pre-lawsuit sublimit payment. The insurer paid the award and did NOT challenge the application of the $1,000 sublimit in court, although it could have since coverage issues are decided by courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
