Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame
November 30, 2016 —
Curtis W. Martin – Peckar & Abramson, P.C. BulletinWho is responsible for defective design under Texas law? The contractor, under Lonergan? The
owner, under Spearin? A recent Fifth Circuit decision suggests that in some cases this might be the
wrong question when design responsibility is disputed. The appellate court recently remanded a
case back to the district court to determine whether the contractor or owner breached an implied
duty to cooperate in discovering defects in design and subsequently pricing the change required
to correct the problem.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@pecklaw.com
Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied
July 30, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter being sued for negligence for failing to secure proper coverage, the broker was unsuccessful in seeking dismissal by way of summary judgment. Liverman Metal Recycling, Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87957 (E.D. N.C. May 25, 2018).
Plaintiffs were two companies, Empire and Liverman, that processed scrap metal. They were in the process of merging under a management plan by which Empire would acquire Liverman. As part of the plan, Empire's employees were moved on to Liverman's payroll processing system. Concurrently, Liverman renewed its workmen's compensation policy. Defendant Arthur J. Gallagher & Company, an insurance broker, handled the renewal with the insurer, Bridgefield Insurance Company.
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
Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Pennsylvania courts have long held that there is an implied warranty of habitability for the initial purchaser of a home. Now, as some defects may not immediately show up, the court has extended that implied warranty to second and subsequent purchasers. As Marc D. Brookman, David I. Haas, and Christopher Bender of Duane Morris note, “this judicially created doctrine shifts the risk of a latent defect in the construction of a new home from the purchaser to the builder-vendor.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that a contractual relationship is not needed for an implied warranty of habitability. The court’s concern was inequalities would result when a home was sold while other homes were protected by being within the statute of repose.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage
December 30, 2019 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCCertificates of insurance are a common tool used in the construction industry to provide proof of insurance coverage. The legal effect of certificates of insurance has been a source of debate in Washington. Insurance companies have argued that certificates of insurance are “informational only” and do not alter the terms of the applicable insurance policy. Insurance companies have taken the position that if a certificate of insurance provides for coverage that is different than what the policy provides, the insurance company is only bound to provide what the policy provides.
The Washington State Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in an opinion issued on October 10, 2019, and held that an insurance company is bound by the terms of its certificate of insurance – even if it conflicts with the policy. In T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, Selective’s agent issued a certificate of insurance to “T-Mobile USA, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates” and stated that those entities were “included as additional insured” under the policy. The certificate of insurance was issued by Selective’s agent when T-Mobile’s contractor purchased an insurance policy from Selective for a cell tower project. The contractor’s agreement for the project was with T-Mobile Northeast – not T-Mobile USA. The contract between T-Mobile Northeast and the contractor stated that T-Mobile Northeast would be an additional insured. The Selective insurance policy stated that any third party would automatically be an additional insured if the contractor was required to name the third party as an additional insured. The contract did not provide that T-Mobile USA would be an additional insured.
A property owner damaged by the cell tower project sued T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile USA tendered the claim to Selective. Selective denied the claim because the contract between the contractor and T-Mobile Northeast did not require the contractor to name T-Mobile USA as an additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”
Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”
The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”
Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”
In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”
The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”
The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters
September 25, 2023 —
Bill Creedon - Construction ExecutiveAccording to the National Fire Protection Association, between 2016 and 2020 an estimated average of 4,300 fires per year plagued structures under construction, adding up to about $376 million in annual property damage. More recently, the National Centers for Environmental Information reported that wildfires accounted for more than $3.2 billion in damages across the United States. These figures alone point to the heightened awareness that all companies—particularly construction companies—should maintain surrounding the unique challenges and risks that wildfires can present and how they could potentially impact the integrity of projects and the associated safety of their workers.
As North America grapples with the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires, hurricanes and additional severe weather events, numerous industries have had to adapt and implement proactive measures to minimize their risks and associated exposures. The impact of these natural disasters on the construction industry is indisputable, necessitating proactive measures that construction companies should seriously consider adopting to effectively mitigate those risks, efficiently navigate insurance complexities and seamlessly integrate data-driven solutions alongside modern tools like AI and predictive modeling.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Creedon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Creedon may be contacted at
bill.creedon@wtwco.com
OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!
February 06, 2023 —
Rachel E. Pelovitz - Construction ExecutiveThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has sourced new members for its Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, which was established by the Construction Safety Act to provide “advice and assistance in construction standards and policy matters” to the assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. The committee consists of 15 members, one appointed by the secretary of labor, to represent the interests of employers, employees, state safety and health agencies, in addition to the public.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rachel E. Pelovitz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Pelovitz may be contacted at pelovitz@abc.org
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions
June 02, 2016 —
David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law BlogThe lawsuits required to perfect and foreclose upon a lien have confused lien claimants and their attorneys for years. This confusion was recently demonstrated in a recent case entitled Founders Kitchen and Bath, Inc. v. Alexander, No. A15A1262, 2015 WL 6875026 (Ga. App. 2015).
In the case, the trial court granted an owner’s motion for summary judgment against a subcontractor that sought to foreclose on its materialman’s lien. In deciding to reverse the trial court’s decision, the Court held that issues of material fact still existed as to whether the owner and subcontractor were in privity of contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
