Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages
March 14, 2022 —
Blake A. Dillion, Jared De Jong & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsInsurers regularly argue that commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies are not performance bonds and therefore there is no coverage for claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Insurers also argue there is no coverage for so-called “tear-out” or “rip-and-tear” damages, where fixing property damage requires replacing defective work that has not itself been damaged. Fortunately, in a newly decided case, a Texas federal district court rejected both arguments by an insurer. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. McMillin Texas Homes, LLC, No. SA-20-CV-01332-XR, 2022 WL 686727 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022).
As with most construction-defect claims, this case involved homeowner claims against a residential developer, McMillin Texas Homes (“McMillin”). After the homes were completed, homeowners complained about defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish and filed suit. McMillin tendered to its insurer, Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”). Amerisure then sued McMillin for declaratory relief, arguing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the homeowner claims. McMillin filed a counterclaim alleging Amerisure breached its policies by refusing to defend or indemnify McMillin.
Reprinted courtesy of
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears,
Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Alleged Misrepresentation Claim
January 23, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found there was no coverage for a misrepresentation claim against the insured sellers of a residence. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coyne, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186417 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2022).
Aaron and Tobi Beckman purchased a home from Denise Coyne. The Bockmans alleged in the underlying suit that Coyne represented that the property had a "2-car garage." A disclosure statement signed by Coyne stated she had disclosed all conditions which might lower the value of the property or adversely affect the Bockman's decision to buy the property. After purchasing the property, the Bockmans learned that they could not fit their two vehicles in the attached garage. The Bockmans alleged that substantial remediation was necessary to expand the depth of the garage to fit two cars within it.
The underlying suit alleged that Coyne had was engaged in fraud, misrepresentation and concealment by omitting material facts in connection with the sale of the home. Coyne allegedly engaged in negligent misrepresentation by failing to inform the Bockmans of the depth of the attached garage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product
December 23, 2024 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Coway USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-3516, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192849, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant sold and/or marketed a product and, thus, could be held liable for an alleged defect in the product. The plaintiff, a subrogating insurance carrier, brought strict product liability and breach of warranty claims against the defendant—the installer of a bidet in its insured’s home—claiming that the defendant also marketed and sold the bidet. The sole evidence to support a finding that the defendant sold the bidet was the homeowner’s testimony that she bought the product from the installer. The court found that the insured’s testimony, without any documentation or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish that the defendant sold the product. Since proof of a sale is a required element for strict product liability and breach of warranty claims, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
This case involved a water loss to the Pennsylvania residence of Mikyung Kim and her husband Adrian Kim (collectively, the Kims) that was discovered in April 2021. An investigation revealed that the water loss originated from the failure of a bidet for a toilet in the second-floor bathroom. The Kims alleged that defendant, Coway USA, Inc. (Coway), sold the bidet and installed it around 2010. An employee of the plaintiff’s liability expert, a materials engineer, opined that a T-connector—a plastic valve that regulates the flow of water to and through the bidet—failed due to overtightening of the connector during the manufacturing process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums
June 29, 2017 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogDeveloper transition is the process by which governance over a condominium unit owners’ association (“condominium association”) is transferred from condominium developer to unit owner control. Below is an overview of the legal requirements in the District of Columbia that govern this transition process as well as a “transition checklist” for unit owner-elected boards of directors that have recently transitioned from developer control.
TRANSITION LAW OVERVIEW
PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL
A developer initially controls a condominium association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium. As such, the condominium developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the condominium developer makes all decisions on behalf of the condominium association.
The developer also creates a condominium association’s governing documents allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors is ultimately transferred to the unit owners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.Mr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Equitable Lien Designed to Prevent Unjust Enrichment
November 09, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are instances where a party does not have construction lien rights but, nevertheless, feels the need to pursue an equitable lien against the real property.
No different than a construction lien, an action to enforce an equitable lien has a one-year limitations period if it arises from the “furnishing of labor, services, or material for the improvement of real property.” Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(5)(b). In other words, an equitable lien–not nearly as powerful as a construction lien because a construction lien is recorded in the official public records whereas an equitable lien is not–is tied to an analogous one-year limitations period for those liening for construction improvements. (Notably, if the equitable lien arises outside of the construction improvement context, the one-year statute of limitations would not apply. See Gabriji, LLC v. Hollywood East, LLC, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2251a (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (one-year statute of limitations period does not apply to all equitable liens such as those that do not arise from furnishing labor, services, or material for the improvement of real property)).
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
"My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties
February 23, 2016 —
David A. Harris & Jesse M. Sullivan – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPRetention clauses are almost always included in California construction contracts and permit an Owner to withhold a portion of what is owed to the General Contractor as security to ensure the proper completion of the work. General Contractors pass the withholding of retention down to the subcontractors. Thus, if the subcontractor fails to complete its work, or fails to correct deficiencies, the Owner/General Contractor can use the retention to pay the costs of completing or correcting the subcontractor’s work.
The contractor must release any retention it receives from the owner within ten days unless a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and the subcontractor.” (Civil Code section 8814.) Where there is a good faith dispute, the contractor “may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” (Civil Code section 8814(c).) If the contractor wrongfully withholds retention, it must not only pay the retention but must also pay the subcontractor “a penalty of 2 percent per month on the amount wrongfully withheld.” The contractor must also pay the subcontractor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collecting the retention. (Civil Code section 8818.)
Reprinted courtesy of
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity
July 22, 2019 —
Edward J. Hermes - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction BlogThere are many legal issues to consider when bidding on and building projects in American Indian Country. Which labor and employment laws apply? Are there contracting or hiring preferences that apply? Do the Prompt Pay Act and other state laws apply? Can I bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract and, if so, where would I file suit? This article addresses the final question, which is often the most important question when contracting with a tribal entity.
Many of the construction projects in American Indian Country are with tribes or entities wholly owned or by a tribe, such as housing authorities, casinos, hospitals, schools or other economic enterprises. Like the state and federal government, tribes (and their tribally—owned enterprises) enjoy sovereign immunity from any lawsuit, meaning they cannot be sued unless the tribe expressly agrees to waive its sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity poses a unique issue for contractors that does not typically arise in other projects, but it need not be a deterrent to doing business with tribes. It is usually in the best interest of both the contractor and tribe to negotiate an acceptable waiver of sovereign immunity. Absent such a waiver, the tribe or tribal entity cannot be sued and the resulting forfeiture of remedies can be devastating for the contractor.
To waive sovereign immunity, the tribe must make it clear in the contract that it can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). It does not matter whether the tribe is operating on or off its lands—if there is no express contractual waiver of sovereign immunity, a contractor will have no recourse in the event of non-payment or other breach of contract. See Kiowa tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Edward J. Hermes, Snell & WilmerMr. Hermes may be contacted at
ehermes@swlaw.com
Big Policyholder Win in Michigan
January 05, 2017 —
Jeremiah M. Welch – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Jeremiah Welch and
Michael Barrese recently had a big win in front of the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The case (Skanska-Schweitzer v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan) involved Skanska’s claim for defense and indemnity from Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Michigan for an injury to an elementary school student arising out of the removal of playground equipment by a landscaping company, Horrocks. Farm Bureau denied coverage because it claimed that the work was not part of Horrocks’ contract with the project owner and therefore Skanska, the construction manager, did not qualify as an additional insured on the policy.
SDV argued that the AI endorsement did not specify that Horrocks’ work be performed as part of its contract with the owner; it only required that the work be performed “for Skanska.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Welch may be contacted at
jmw@sdvlaw.com
