Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work
September 24, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit determined there was no coverage for faulty workmanship causing property damage to the insured's project. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Board of Directors of Regal Lofts Condominium Ass'n, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16250 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014).
The developer converted a vacant building into a condominium. The construction was completed in 2000. The Condominium Board took control of the condo association on July 27, 2000. As early as May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage problems in the building. Other complaints surfaced. An investigation found that the exterior brick masonry walls were not fully waterproofed, which caused leaks. The investigation further showed that deteriorated conditions had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but the present water penetration was caused by the inadequate restoration of the walls to a water-tight condition.
The underlying action was filed against the developer for failure to properly construct the exterior walls. The developer's carrier, Nautilus, denied coverage. In an amended complaint, the Board added a count of negligence. Again, Nautilus denied coverage. The Board's second amended complaint alleged that the developer's negligence had caused damage to personal property within the building, in addition to the interior of the building and the building itself. For the third time, Nautilus denied coverage and filed for declaratory relief.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency
September 03, 2019 —
Amy E. Vulpio - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterIn In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that “the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock” and other defendants. This “startling pattern of misrepresentation” included plaintiffs’ attorneys who, out of “perverted ethical duty,” counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such “double dipping” and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now – five years after Garlock – the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ’s missteps.
In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors’ proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amy E. Vulpio, White and Williams LLPMs. Vulpio may be contacted at
vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com
California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens
May 04, 2020 —
Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsMany businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as second-class citizens, refusing to acknowledge that the additional insured has the same rights as the policyholder, who paid the premium. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, a California appellate court removes any doubt whether these additional insureds are third-party beneficiaries entitled to the same rights – and bound by the same duties – as the entity that bought the policy.
While the dispute at issue in SMG Holdings was a narrow one – i.e., whether the additional insured was bound by the policy’s arbitration clause – the implications of its holding are far ranging in ways that, in some instances, may benefit the additional insured. For example, because the additional insured is an intended beneficiary under the policy, neither the insurer nor the policyholder may do anything to impair the additional insured’s rights under the policy; if they do, they may be liable for tortiously interfering with the additional insured’s contract rights. This means that (again, by way of example) if the insurer attempts to rescind, or cancel, or amend the policy in a way that impairs the additional insured’s rights, the additional insured may have recourse. It also means that if the policyholder does something untoward that jeopardizes the additional insured’s rights under the policy, the policyholder may be liable to the additional insured for any resulting harm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & FearsMr. Thomas may be contacted at
sst@paynefears.com
First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit
October 24, 2023 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp., the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an insurer’s “insupportable” defense that the insured company had breached its duty to cooperate by refusing the insurer’s request for an examination under oath of the company’s president. The decision is a reminder that, while examinations under oath can be effective tools to allow the insurer to properly investigate a claim, an insured’s duty to cooperate is not boundless and does not demand attendance at examinations that are not reasonably requested.
Background
BAS Holding involves the destruction of a landmark building in Boston by an arsonist. The owner, BAS Holding Corporation, submitted an insurance claim to its property insurer to recover insurance proceeds for the damage to the building. The insurer investigated the claim to determine whether the damage to the building was covered and issued a reservation of rights letter suggesting that the policy may not provide coverage for the fire. As part of its investigation, the insurer requested an examination under oath as a condition to coverage under the policy, which led to BAS presenting the property’s operations coordinator for an interview. Shortly after examining the operations coordinator, the insurer sought another examination of BAS’s president and owner, as well as five other employees. In response, BAS questioned whether the additional examinations were “reasonably required” and said that it would consider the requests if the insurer could explain why they were necessary.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.
September 07, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s the case that has turned into a modern day Hatfield versus McCoy – McGee v. Torrance Unified School District, Case No. 8298122, 2nd District Court of Appeals (May 29, 2020) – a series of cases challenging the validity of certain lease-leaseback construction contracts in California.
In shootout number one, James McGee sued the Torrance Unified School District challenging the validity of lease-leaseback contracts the District had entered into with general contractor Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC. Under California’s lease-leaseback statute, a school district can lease property it owns to a developer, who in turns builds a school facility on the property and leases the facility back to the school district. The primary benefit of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that a school district does not need to come up with money to build the facility because the district pays for the facility over time through lease payments to the developer. In shootout number one, McGee argued that Torrance Unified School District was required to competitively bid the lease-leasebacks projects. The 2nd District Court of Appeals disagreed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction
March 14, 2018 —
Shannon M. Warren – The Subrogation Strategist On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In
Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions.
In
Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis.
As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The
Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLPMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)
October 16, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court held in Uniwest Const., Inc. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., Inc., that Va. Code Sec. 11-4.1 renders completely void and unenforceable any indemnification provision in a construction contract between a contractor and subcontractor that seeks to indemnify the indemnified party from its own negligent acts. In short, the Virginia Supreme Court stated that such overly broad provisions violate Section 11-4.1.
A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia Federal District Court examined a provision in a contract between a designer/architect and a contractor or owner on a project. In Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Lessard Design Inc. the Court examined the application of Section 11-4.1 to the following provision of a design contract where Lessard, the indemnitor, agreed to:
[i]ndemnify, defend and hold the Owner, Owner’s Developer, and Owner’s and Owner’s Developer’s wholly owned affiliates and the agents, employees and officers of any of them harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, expenses, claims, fines and penalties, costs and expenses, including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs relating to the services performed by the Architect hereunder . . .
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Coverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion
March 05, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar defense or indemnity for the insured's obligation to clean up a superfund site. Decker Mfg. Corp. v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12169 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2015).
From 1966 to 1981, Decker disposed of its waste materials at the township landfill. The landfill was closed in 1981. Decker was insured under a CGL policy for a four year period from January 1, 1973, through January 1, 1977.
After the landfill was closed, the EPA began an investigation which eventually led to a Unilateral Administrative Order in 1995 in which Decker was ordered to remove drums, construct a landfill cap, and monitor groundwater. Decker notified Travelers of the EPA's order on November 14, 1995. Travelers responded that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Decker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
