Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado
February 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAlthough the Tenth Circuit Court determined that construction defects are occurrences under a general liability policy and the passage of CRS Section 13-20-808, in which the Colorado Legislature addressed the definition of occurrences as they relate to construction defects, the insurance industry “will continue to challenge the very concept of coverage for construction defects,” according to five attorneys at the law firm Sherman & Howard.
They suggest that there are lessons to be learned from two recent cases that were recently decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals, TCD, Inc. v. American Family and Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company. They suggest that construction professionals to be certain that their insurers are “firmly rooted in insuring the construction industry.” Their broker should also have “specific expertise in insuring the construction industry.” And don’t buy on price alone. Finally, they suggest that construction professionals should “engage an experienced coverage attorney to assess pursuing coverage when an insurance company denies coverage for a construction defect claim.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage
July 13, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the insurer paid for some of the mold damage at the insured’s home, the Fifth Circuit eventually determined the homeowner’s policy did not cover such damage. Rooters v. State Farm Lloyds, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12306 (5th Cir. June 15, 2011).
The policy excluded loss caused by hail to personal property unless the direct force of wind or hail made an opening in the roof allowing rain to enter. Further, the policy excluded loss caused by mold or other fungi.
In 1999, hail and rain caused water damage to the roof and interior of the residence. State Farm paid $19,000 to repair the roof. Another $1,800 was paid for repairs to the interior of the building. In 2002, the insured noticed black mold. State Farm issued an additional check for $4,402 for mold abatement.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses
June 06, 2018 —
Jonathan Barnes - Engineering News-RecordThe state of Pennsylvania continues to try to recover funds from professional firms involved in the city of Harrisburg’s disastrous incinerator project in the early 2000’s and has named, Buchart Horn, Inc., an engineering, architecture and planning firm based in York, Pa. as a defendant.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Barnes, ENRENR staff may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected
January 13, 2014 —
CDJ STAFFHomeowners in Westerly, Rhode Island have been concerned about alterations made to a seawall below Taylor Swift’s seaside home in Rhode Island, particularly in that some large boulders have been moved to the shore. But officials with Rhode Island’s Coastal Resource Management Council have assured residents that the work is being done at their request, according to the Westerly Sun.
In addition to moving boulders, the project repairs an existing seawall which was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. The cost is estimated to be $2 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian
September 16, 2019 —
Adam P. Handfinger, Stephen H. Reisman & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.While Hurricane Dorian churns in the Atlantic with its sights currently set on the east coast of Florida, storm preparations should be well underway. As you are busy organizing efforts to secure your job sites, we at Peckar & Abramson offer some quick reminders that may prove helpful:
- Review your contracts, particularly the force majeure provisions, and be sure to comply with applicable notice requirements
- Even if not expressly required at this time, consider providing written notice to project owners that their projects are being prepared for a potential hurricane or tropical storm and that the productivity and progress of the work will be affected, with the actual time and cost impact to be determined after the event.
- Consult your hurricane plan (which is often a contract exhibit) and confirm compliance with all specified safety, security and protection measures.
- Provide written notice to your subcontractors and suppliers of the actions they are required to take to secure and protect their portions of the work and the timetable for completion of their storm preparations.
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, PC attorneys
Adam P. Handfinger,
Stephen H. Reisman and
Gary M. Stein
Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com
Mr. Reisman may be contacted at sreisman@pecklaw.com
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment
November 21, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA collapsed floor in a restaurant was found to be covered. J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163661 (D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2022).
J&J Fish rented property from Vision. Vision was obligated to keep the premises insured under an all-risk policy. Vision was also responsible for maintaining and repairing the property "including the slab flooring exterior walls of the premises." Vision never obtained insurance on the building, but J&J Fish secured a commercial property policy from Crum & Forster.
On May 29, 2020, approximately 25% of the building's slab floor, the section beneath the walk-in cooler, collapsed into the crawl space below. Dr. Daniel Wojnowski inspected the crawl space and observed overall dampness as well as a pool of water in the space. He concluded that the collapse occurred because the steel support beams and steel elements of the floor corroded after prolonged exposure to moisture. Based on this report, Crum & Forster denied coverage. J&J Fish sued and the parties moved for summary judgment.
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
Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire
January 21, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied the insured's claim based upon misrepresentations in the application after destruction of his house by fire. Hayes v. Metropolitan Pro. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31813 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018).
Hayes' home was insured by Met under a homeowner's policy. Hayes used the detached garage as part of a home base for his plumbing business. He also rented out the second and third levels of the residence to a tenant and her two children. When Hayes applied for the policy in 2007, Met argues he indicated on the application that the premises were not used to conduct business, and were not used as rental property.
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
