New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims
January 02, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews KurthIn a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose
March 18, 2019 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence.
In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and WilliamsMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"
June 25, 2019 —
William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Southern District of California recently held that a series of demands for a general contractor to investigate and repair several construction defects at a U.S. Army facility did not constitute a “suit” within the meaning of the general contractor’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy.
In Harper Construction Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., the U.S. Government hired Harper Construction Company (“Harper”) to construct a U.S. Army training facility for the Patriot Missile System in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. No. 18-cv-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019). During the project, Harper hired Harper Mechanical Contractors (“Harper Mechanical”), an independent company, as a subcontractor “to perform demolition, grading, and other work at the Project.”
After Harper completed the project, the government informed Harper of property damage at the project, “including, but not limited to, gypsum wallboard cracks and binding doors.” Harper attempted to repair the issues, but the problems continued. The issues were apparently the result of Harper Mechanical’s grading work. Subsequently, the government sent two letters requesting an investigation and asking Harper to “propose a plan to correct the issues.” As Harper undertook an investigation spanning multiple years, the government became increasingly frustrated with the delays. The government threatened to initiate “formal administrative recourse” and to demolish the project, forcing Harper to re-build from the ground up. It also sent Harper another letter requesting Harper submit a formal proposal to correct the issues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Illinois Couple Files Suit Against Home Builder
January 15, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFLast December, Norman and Valerie Adkins, a couple in Edwardsville, Illinois, filed suit against their home builder, Customary Construction, and contractor Kevin M. Kahrig, alleging that the defendants did not build their deck according to code, Kelly Holleran of the Madison Record reported.
According to the complaint as stated by the Madison Record, the Adkins purchased the home from the defendants in October of 2010. The couple notified Kahrig (the Customary Construction owner) regarding cracks along the perimeter of their deck that had not been caulked. Kahrig sent a crew to fix the cracks, but the Adkins were unhappy with the work, the complaint states. The Adkins hired a masonry contractor to fix the deck, and the contractor found “structural issues with the arches and brick columns supporting the deck at the back of their home,” reported the Madison Record.
The Adkins then hired an engineer who “inspected the deck and reported that it had been improperly constructed and needed to be removed and replaced,” according to the complaint. The engineer continued, “The current condition of the deck is a safety hazard, as there is a risk of collapse and loose bricks or other masonry materials falling and striking a person within the proximity of the deck.” The Adkins are seeking “a judgment of more than $150,000, plus costs and attorney’s fees,” the Madison Record claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida
May 29, 2023 —
Michael Gnesin - Lewis BrisboisFt. Lauderdale, Fla. (May 19, 2023) - Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill prohibiting Chinese citizens who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents from purchasing any residential or commercial land or farmland in Florida.
Senate Bill 264, titled “Interests of Foreign Countries,” will prohibit Chinese nationals from buying land unless they are American citizens or permanent residents. The bill also imposes certain restrictions on Chinese citizens – and others, including Russians and Venezuelans – with non-tourist visas when it comes to buying land near a military base in Florida. For example, and in an exception to the new law, Chinese citizens with non-tourist visas would be limited to buying fewer than two acres of land that is at least five miles away from any military institutions.
Senate Bill 264 reads in pertinent part:
…A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent agricultural land or any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in such land in this state….
…A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, or have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in real property on or within 10 miles of any military installation or critical infrastructure facility in this state…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Gnesin, Lewis BrisboisMr. Gnesin may be contacted at
Michael.Gnesin@lewisbrisbois.com
SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRiadh Ben Aissa, a former SNC-Lavalin executive, “pleaded guilty to charges including bribery and money laundering in Switzerland, according to a court filing released on Wednesday,” reported the Wall Street Journal.
SNC-Lavalin “issued a separate statement acknowledging the court's acceptance of Mr. Ben Aissa's guilty pleas, adding it was recognized as ‘an injured party’ in the case and would recover an unspecified amount of money from him.”
Chief Executive Robert Card stated, “SNC-Lavalin's goal is nothing less than to set a new standard for clean business in the engineering and construction industry,” as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. “We've adopted a zero-tolerance policy for ethics violations of any kind. We have the right people in place and systems and procedures which are designed to protect the company and its stakeholders from future fraudulent actions."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E
September 17, 2014 —
Mark Chediak – BloombergA deadly pipeline explosion that shattered a California town four years ago continues to rip through the state agency weighing a record penalty for the disaster.
The president of the California Public Utilities Commission asked his chief of staff to resign and recused himself from the case after “inappropriate e-mail exchanges” with PG&E Corp. (PCG) raised questions about bias, according to a statement from the commission yesterday. The CPUC may decide within weeks whether to levy a proposed $1.4 billion penalty -- the biggest safety fine in the state’s history -- against PG&E for the 2010 explosion of a natural gas pipeline that killed eight people in San Bruno.
Commission President Michael Peevey, who has been accused by San Bruno officials and consumer advocates of being too close to the utility, said in the statement he would not take part in penalty deliberations to eliminate any appearance of impropriety. The move is a step toward regaining credibility for the CPUC after two years of political infighting has created an ongoing climate of scandal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, BloombergMr. Chediak may be contacted at
mchediak@bloomberg.net
