Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer
November 02, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer.
In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:
The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.
2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).
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
Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party
January 21, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 8, 2015, the Second Appellate district affirmed judgment of the lower court in State Ready Mix Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, and barred a concrete supplier from blaming a third party consultant for the concrete supplier's failure to deliver concrete that met project specifications.
In 2012, Major Engineering Marine, Inc. was hired by a project manager to construct a harbor pier in the Channel Islands Harbor. Major hired State Ready Mix, Inc. to supply the concrete for the project. State wrote and submitted a concrete mix design and, at the request of Major, civil engineer Moffatt & Nichol reviewed and approved State's mix design at no charge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: Recent Legal Developments at Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts
December 18, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a review of initial Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Courts oral arguments and other matters in October 2022.
Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court
Michael Sackett, et ux., v. Environmental Protection Agency
The Supreme Court’s 2022 term began on October 3, 2022, with this important oral argument. For many years, the petitioner has encountered EPA opposition to the construction of a home on his property located near a lake in Idaho. The agency insists that the land is subject to federal regulatory jurisdiction, in that a Clean Water Act permit will be needed before work can proceed. Several courts have already weighed in on this issue; whether the land in question is considered a regulated “wetlands” pursuant to the “significant nexus” test developed by the Court in the Rapanos case decided in 2006. The oral argument was fairly long and spirited. The justices appear to believe that the “significant nexus” is unworkable because in many instances it provides little or no guidance to landowners as to whether their property may be subject to federal jurisdiction, and thus subject to civil and even criminal penalties. Justice Kavanaugh remarked that “this case is going to be important for wetlands throughout the country and we have to get it right.” Later, Justice Gorsuch lamented the fact that implementing a test for federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act test is so difficult to apply: “If the federal government doesn’t know [if a property is adjacent to navigable water and is regulated,] “does a reasonable landowner have any idea.” The issue is very difficult to resolve, and the Congress has indicated that is has no interest in entering this regulatory thicket.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion
September 28, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn Nagog Real Estate Consulting Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against claims brought by an injured subcontractor, based on an overbroad employer’s liability exclusion in the policy.
Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to developer Nagog Homes LLC and its related construction company, Nagog Real Estate. The policy was endorsed with an Employer’s Liability Exclusion (the L205 Endorsement) that expanded the scope of the standard exclusion in the coverage form to include bodily injury claims of employees of “any” insured and their contractors or subcontractors, as opposed to simply the employees of the named insured.
Nagog Homes was the developer, and Nagog Real Estate was the general contractor for a residential construction project. An employee of the framing subcontractor hired by Nagog Real Estate was injured while working on the project and sued both Nagog entities for his injuries. Nautilus, relying on the modified employer’s liability exclusion, denied coverage for the lawsuit based on allegations that the Nagog entities hired the framing subcontractor to perform work, which effectively made the plaintiff an employee of one or both of the Nagog entities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita , Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered
September 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's claim for loss based on theft and water leaks was not covered under the property policy. SJP Props. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97216 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2015).
SJP Properties bought and sold foreclosed properties. On July 13, 2006, it purchased at a foreclosure sale a property in St. Louis. The property was not inspected before or after the purchase, and sat vacant for more than two years. No one checked regularly on the property.
The property was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mount Vernon, effective from March 8, 2006 to March 8, 2009. The policy covered vandalism, but excluded loss caused by theft. An exception for the exclusion provided coverage for "building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars." The policy also excluded loss or damage caused by fungus, wet rot, dry rot and bacteria or water leaks for a period of 14 days or more.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect
February 24, 2020 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations.
1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced.
However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply.
The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Mortgage Applications in U.S. Jump 11.6% as Refinancing Surges
October 22, 2014 —
Danielle Trubow – BloombergMortgage applications in the U.S. soared last week as a plunge in borrowing costs led to biggest gain in home refinancing since January 2012.
The Mortgage Bankers Association’s index rose 11.6 percent in the period ended Oct. 17, the biggest gain since January, after a 5.6 percent advance the week before, figures from the Washington-based group showed today.
The refinancing gauge jumped 23.3 percent while the purchase applications measure dropped 4.6 percent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle Trubow, BloombergMs. Trubow may be contacted at
dtrubow@bloomberg.net
