The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back
October 02, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog“[I]t ain’t how hard you hit; it’s about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done. . . .” – Sylvester Stalone as Rocky Balboa in Rocky Balboa.
Ding, ding.
The Little Case That Roared
Two years ago we wrote about a case that caused an uproar in the homebuilding industry – Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (2013) – in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held for the first time that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims involving “actual,” as opposed to “economic,” damages in new residential housing.
It was a blow to the homebuilding industry who back in 2002, following a wave of construction defect lawsuits involving new residential housing, lobbied the State Legislature for the Right to Repair Act which gave homebuilders an opportunity to repair defects before being sued in court.
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
Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?
July 15, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA general release of “unknown” claims through the effective date of the release does NOT bar “unaccrued” claims. This is especially important when it comes to fraud claims where the facts giving rise to the fraud may have occurred prior to the effective date in the release, but a party did not learn of the fraud until well after the effective date in the release. A recent opinion maintained that a general release that bars unknown claims does NOT mean a fraud claim will be barred since the last element to prove a fraud had not occurred, and thus, the fraud claim had not accrued until after the effective date in the release. See Falsetto v. Liss, Fla. L. Weekly D1340D (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The 2014 [Settlement] Agreement’s plain language released the parties only from “known or unknown” claims, not future or unaccrued claims. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the fraud claim had accrued — that is, whether Falsetto [party to Settlement Agreement] knew or through the exercise of due diligence should have known about the alleged fraud at the time the 2014 Agreement was executed — the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those fraud claims.”).
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
Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law
February 06, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a negligence action, the issue of whether a duty applies is a question of law. See Limones v. School Dist. of Lee County, 161 So.3d 384, 389 (Fla. 2015) (“[T]he existence of a duty is a legal question because duty is the standard to which the jury compares the conduct of the defendant.”); McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992) (“Since duty is a question of law, an appellate court obviously could reverse based on its purely legal conclusion that no such duty existed.”). Thus, the trial court determines, as a matter of law, whether a legal duty of care applies in a negligence action.
Florida law recognizes the following four sources of duty: (1) statutes or regulations; (2) common law interpretations of those statutes or regulations; (3) other sources in the common law; and (4) the general facts of the case.
See id.
Oftentimes it is the fourth source – the general facts of the case – that comes into play to determine whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL
August 03, 2020 —
Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn - Newmeyer DillionOn June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020).
In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5.
In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id.
The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10.
Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id.
Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673
March 22, 2017 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCOn October 25, 2016, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and the U.S. Department of Labor implemented former President Obama’s Executive Order 13673: “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” rules. The rules became effective on October 25, 2016 and fundamentally altered the way federal contractors and subcontractors will need to handle and resolve employment and labor claims, as well as compliance issues involving their entire workforce. The final rules can also result in otherwise-capable companies being “blacklisted” and effectively barred from federal contracts and subcontracts based on labor and employment law violations related or unrelated to prior or current federal contract performance. The centerpiece of the new regulatory scheme was the new disclosure and responsibility requirements. Contractors and subcontractors needed to disclose all “labor law decisions” that they had during the three years (prior to bid submission) as part of the process of applying for a new federal contract or subcontract. If a contractor or subcontractor has too many “labor law decisions” to report or the few it has are too severe, pervasive, repeated, or willful in the eyes of the government “experts,” the company could be deemed “non-responsible” and denied a contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?
July 30, 2018 —
Adam M. Berardi & Sara C. Tilitz - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterThe American Law Institute voted on May 22, 2018 to approve the final draft of its “Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance.” This was the culmination of an eight-year project that evolved through 29 drafts resulting in a nearly 500-page final product. At least nine courts cited to the Restatement while it was still in draft form. On June 28, 2018, White and Williams LLP had the privilege of hosting a seminar about the Restatement, chaired by the Reporter for the Restatement, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Tom Baker, and Randy Maniloff of White and Williams, author of “General Liability Insurance Coverage, Key Issues In Every State.” The seminar was geared toward assisting members of the liability insurance community in navigating the key provisions of the Restatement, including how they compare and contrast with existing case law and the role the Restatement may play in courts’ decision-making processes going forward.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adam M. Berardi , White and Williams, LLP and
Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. Berardi may be contacted at berardia@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.
January 14, 2015 —
Tom Schoenberg and Edvard Pettersson – BloombergStandard & Poor’s is close to a settlement of about $1 billion with the U.S. for allegedly misleading investors about its ratings of mortgage-backed securities before the subprime crisis, a person familiar with the matter said.
The McGraw Hill Financial Inc. (MHFI) unit and the Justice Department may agree to settle the case as early as this quarter, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations are confidential.
The Justice Department has secured settlements worth tens of billions of dollars during the past two years from mortgage lenders and banks it blamed for the 2008 financial crisis. Those companies generated unprecedented amounts of shoddy mortgages that were packaged and sold to investors as securities, many of which turned out to be worthless despite their investment-grade ratings.
Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Pettersson may be contacted at epettersson@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Schoenberg and Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg
Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion
March 09, 2020 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn ABK, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2019 WL 7046393 (Idaho Dec. 23, 2019) an insured gas station owner sued its property insurance carrier for breach of contract and bad faith after the carrier denied coverage for loss caused by water contamination of the insured’s underground storage tanks. Mid-Century had denied coverage because the underground storage tanks were damaged by water -- which was an excluded peril under the policy. Mid-Century issued Business Owners Special Property Coverage to the insured which provided all-risk coverage for physical loss or damage. The policy contained a number of exclusionary provisions including a water exclusion which provided that the policy did not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by:
- Flood, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow or any body of water, or their spray, all whether driven by wind or not; ...
- Water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing or seeping through:
- Foundations, walls, floors or paved surfaces:
- Basements, whether paved or not; or
- Doors, windows or other openings.
In upholding the District Court’s ruling in favor of Mid-Century, the Idaho Supreme Court held that a clear reading of the unambiguous policy provides damage caused by surface water or water under the ground when flowing or seeping through other openings is excluded from coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
