Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel
May 24, 2021 —
Patrick Haggerty - White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is pleased to announce the promotion of Patrick Haggerty to the position of Counsel. Pat is a member of the Real Estate and Finance groups and practices in the Philadelphia office.
Pat focuses his practice on a wide range of commercial real estate transactions and financings. He represents real estate developers, owners, and investors, international and domestic banks, private equity firms, hedge funds, and insurance companies in the financing, acquisition, development, repositioning and disposition of commercial real estate assets.
“Pat’s unique skillset and impressive experience enhances the services which we can provide to our real estate and finance clients. We are proud to promote such a talented lawyer,” said Tim Davis, Chair of the Business Department. “We look forward to his continued success.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Haggerty, White and Williams LLPMr. Haggerty may be contacted at
haggertyp@whiteandwilliams.com
Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well
May 03, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs those who read my “musings” here at this construction law blog are well aware, the topic of Virginia mechanic’s liens is one that is much discussed. From the basic statutory requirements to the more technical aspects of these tricky beasts. One aspect of mechanic’s liens that I have yet to discuss in detail it how these liens attach in the situation where the contractor does work for a lessee and not for the owner of the underlying fee interest in the property.
A recent case out of the Western District of Virginia federal court, McCarthy Building Companies Inc. v. TPE Virginia Land Holdings LLC, discusses the interaction of Va. Code 43-20, work on a leasehold, and parties necessary to any litigation relating to a lien for the work on that leasehold. The basic facts, outlined more thoroughly in the linked opinion, are these. MBC provided certain work to TPE Kentuck Solar, LLC on property leased from TPE Virginia Land Holdings, LLC. The lease was for a fixed term and for a fixed amount regardless of the work performed at the property. MBC was unpaid by the Kentuck entity and then recorded a lien on the property and then sued to enforce that lien and for unjust enrichment against TPE Land Holdings. TPE Land Holding filed a motion to dismiss the mechanic’s lien and unjust enrichment counts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry
July 22, 2024 —
Jerry P. Brodsky & Roberto Hernandez - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.“Nearshoring” is a hot topic throughout Latin America and is receiving increasing attention in the United States. We offer this introduction to “Nearshoring” and the opportunities it presents for your reference.
“Nearshoring” has become increasingly relevant in the context of the globalized economy. This phenomenon describes relocating production and service operations to countries geographically close to consumer markets, instead of opting for more distant locations as in traditional “offshoring”, considering, as dominant criteria, production conditions and costs.
Mexico, for example, given its strategic geographic closeness to the United States and its highly skilled labor force, is an attractive location for companies in a wide range of industries which are considering relocation or construction of new facilities and seeking to optimize costs, maintain efficiency and mitigate supply chain risks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerry P. Brodsky, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Roberto Hernandez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Brodsky may be contacted at jbrodsky@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days
April 11, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Florida Court of Appeals recently held the policy's exclusion for repeated water seepage over a period of fourteen days or more does not exclude loss caused by the seepage for the first thirteen days.
Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2018). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects
August 10, 2020 — Hal J. Perloff - Construction Executive
We’ve all heard the expression that those who deal with the government must turn square corners. This is because the government has a broad array of tools at its disposal to motivate, coax and cajole contractors and federal grant recipients to play by the rules. Those tools include harsh measures such as criminal prosecution and civil false claims act enforcement on the one hand and poor CPARS ratings on the other. A seemingly less severe administrative option available to the government is suspension and debarment. However, any entity that has been suspended or debarred knows that these measures can prove harsh and disruptive.
While the numbers of suspensions and debarments have declined from the all-time high in 2011, there is still significant activity. In its FY 2018 report, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee reported 2444 referrals, 480 suspensions, 1542 proposed debarments and 1334 debarments. The number of referrals for suspension and debarment in FY 2018 is almost exactly the same as the number of GAO bid protests filed that year.
WHAT IS SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT?
Suspension and debarment are the government’s tools to avoid entities it views as a high risk for poor performance, fraud, waste and abuse. Suspension and debarment preclude a business entity or individual from contracting with the government or from receiving grants, loans, loan guarantees or other forms of assistance from the government. A suspension is a temporary exclusion when the government determines immediate action is necessary pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding. A debarment is an exclusion for a defined, reasonable period of time—often three years.
Reprinted courtesy of Hal J. Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Perloff may be contacted at hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com
Governor Ducey Vetoes Water and Development Bills
June 09, 2016 — Patrick J. Paul – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
With the second regular legislative session of Governor Doug Ducey’s tenure complete, the Governor exercised his veto pen rejecting several laws impacting water and land development.
On May 9th, Governor Ducey vetoed two measures that could have allowed developers to manipulate the requirements of Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act of 1980: Senate bills the 1268 (adequate water supply requirements) and 1400 (county water supply). The bills’ sponsor, Senator Gail Griffin, had expressed concerns that the federal government was exercising too much control of the water supply in Cochise County in its efforts to ensure the continued flow of water in the San Pedro River.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 — Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs Gidden
On June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
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. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse
October 29, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss claims for loss due to the imminent collapse of the insureds' basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4364914 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2014).
The insureds noticed cracks throughout their basement walls. It was discovered that the condition was the result of a chemical compound used in the concrete of certain basement walls in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The insureds contended that due to the cracking, the basement walls suffered a substantial impairment to their structural integrity making it only a matter of time until the walls collapsed.
The insureds notified their insurer, Peerless. An engineer hired by Peerless determined the walls' condition was caused by poor workmanship and defective materials. On this basis, Peerless denied coverage.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
