How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice
August 26, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we would like to welcome back (again) Sean Lintow Sr. of
SLS Construction & Building Solutions . Sean has over 20 years working directly in the trenches in the construction arena. Since moving to Illinois, the focus of his business has shifted to helping builders, trade professionals& even code officials not only understand and meet the latest energy codes but how to improve their methods to accomplish it better and more affordably.
Currently he is RESNET Rater, AEE CEA (Certified Energy Auditor), ENERGY STAR partner & verifier, EPA Indoor airPLUS verifier, Level 2 Infrared Thermographer, Volunteer Energy Rater for Habitat for Humanity, and Builders Challenge Partner & Verifier. You may also want to check out his great resources on
The HTRC (Homeowners & Trades Resource Center).
I would like to thank Chris for inviting me back for my 6th musing on this great site. I would also like to give him a Belated Happy Birthday for reaching 5 years since going solo. Reaching five years is a big milestone for many businesses as most new ventures (I think it is 85% or maybe even 90%) fail during that time. Therefore, a big congrats to you Chris & here is to another five plus years.
For the most part the blame game for failure comes down to; wrong product offerings (market to saturated, not interested in, etc…), their ability to market, or poor business skills (not charging enough, realizing what they are spending, etc…) as the main point of failures. There is another group though that never seems to get much press and that is the ones that seemingly are blindsided by the dreaded “ignorance of the law” is no excuse… Not only does this effect many large companies but also many solo operations which is where I do want to focus today, especially on 4 “lesser” known issues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off
July 28, 2018 —
Jeremy Hill - BloombergHomeowners in the U.S. are holding on to their houses longer than they have in at least 18 years, and when they do sell, they’re reaping gains that haven’t been seen since before the housing crisis.
Those who sold in the second quarter did so after owning their homes for an average of 8.09 years, the longest stretch since Attom Data Solutions started tracking the statistic in 2000. The wait appears to be paying off: Second-quarter sellers recorded gains averaging $58,000 -- the most since the third quarter of 2007.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy Hill, Bloomberg
Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy
August 03, 2022 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Stonegate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 2022 IL App (1st) 210931, the Insured was performing plumbing work at a multi-story townhouse when a fire ensued causing damage to the second story unit. Although a carpenter by trade, the Insured was performing plumbing work consisting of the replacement of a shower valve as a favor for a friend. To accomplish the task, the Insured utilized a small propane torch to attempt to remove the old water piping to the shower. In doing so, the insulation behind the bathroom wall caught fire and the flame spread upward to the neighboring unit. Stonegate had issued a homeowner’s policy to the Insured during the relevant time period. The homeowner's policy excluded coverage for property damage "[a]rising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services." Subsequent to tender of the loss, Stonegate initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it owned no duty to defend or indemnity pursuant to the professional services exclusions.
In finding in favor of the Insured, the Court began its analysis by noting that the homeowner's policy did not define the term "professional services" such that it was the Court’s task to determine whether the Insured’s work qualified as a "professional service" for purposes of the exclusion. The Court further prefaced its holding by stating that for an exclusionary clause to effectively deny coverage, its applicability must be clear and free from doubt because any doubts as to coverage will be resolved in favor of the insured. Looking to Illinois case precedent, the Court found that the term "professional service" is not limited to services for which the person performing them must be licensed by a governmental authority. Rather, "professional services" encompass any business activity conducted by an insured that (1) involves specialized knowledge, labor, or skill, and (2) is predominantly mental or intellectual as opposed to physical or manual in nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert
June 10, 2019 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn
In re City of Dickinson, 568 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2019), the Supreme Court of Texas recently assessed whether a client’s emails with its counsel were subject to disclosure after the client was designated as a testifying expert witness. In re City of Dickinson involved a coverage dispute between a policyholder and its insurer. The policyholder moved for summary judgment on the issue of causation, essentially alleging that its insurer did not pay all damages caused by Hurricane Ike. In responding to the motion, the insurer relied upon an affidavit by one of its employees, a claims examiner, that included both factual testimony and expert witness testimony.
The policyholder subsequently filed a motion to compel, seeking the production of emails between the claims examiner and the insurer’s counsel that were generated while the affidavit was being drafted. The emails contained numerous revisions of the affidavit. The insurer objected, asserting that the emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were generated in the course of the rendition of legal services.
The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering production. Ultimately, after a series of appeals, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the documents in dispute were subject to discovery. In resolving this issue, the court examined the rules pertaining to expert disclosures. As noted by the court, the rules authorize the production of all documents provided to a testifying expert witness. Thus, the court was faced with determining if its rules required the disclosure of documents that are also subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and WilliamsMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
"Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage
July 06, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the appellate court agreed there was property damage caused by an occurrence, the "your work" exclusion barred the insured contractor's claim. King's Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Commercial Construction. LLC, 2019 Minn. App. LEXIS 389 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2019).
King's Cover Marina sought to expand and remodel its main building. The marina hired Lambert to perform the remodeling project. Lambert hired Roehl Construction, Inc. as a subcontractor to install new concrete footings on the main level of the building and to provide concrete for the second-level mezzanine floor.
After completion, the marina sued Lambert for breach of contract and negligence. The marina alleged that the concrete floors on the first and second levels were not constructed in accordance with industry standards or with project plans and specifications, resulting in excessive movement and cracking of the new concrete floors. Lambert tendered its defense to its insurer, United Fire & Casualty Company. United Fire defended under a reservation of rights and later sued Lambert for declaratory 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
Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer
April 08, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Bock v. Hansen (No. A136567, filed 4/2/14), a California appeals court held that an adjuster employed by an insurer can be sued personally for falsely representing that a first party claimant's policy does not cover a loss.
In Bock, a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto the insureds' home, damaging the roof, chimney, living room walls, windows and floors. The assigned adjuster was alleged to have engaged in "appalling" conduct, including instructing the insureds to clean up the damage themselves (leading to personal injury); denying that the tree cracked the chimney; insulting and disparaging the insureds; altering the scene before taking photographs; misrepresenting the terms of the policy; preparing false claim reports; conspiring with a contractor to prepare an intentionally false report; and knowingly relying on the false report in order to deny a legitimate claim.
The homeowners sued the insurer and named the adjuster personally on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the adjuster demurred arguing that he could not be sued personally because, as an employee of the insurer, he owed no duty to the insureds. The adjuster relied on Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249 and Lippert v. Bailey (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 376, to argue that employees and agents of insurers cannot be held personally liable since, under the law of agency, the proper cause of action is against the principal and not the agent.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?
September 03, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., “the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida addressed what constitutes a ‘suit’ within the context of Florida’s right-to-repair procedure for construction defect disputes,” according to Keith Moskowitz, Michael Barnes, J. Stephen Berry, and Cynthia Liu of Dentons. The district court “held that a notice under Chapter 558 of the Florida statutes, the ‘notice and repair’ statute, ‘does not constitute a “civil proceeding”’ and thus ‘is not a “suit”’ triggering an insurer’s duty to defend under Altman’s Crum & Forster commercial general liability (CGL) policies.”
The article states that “[w]hether the 11th Circuit affirms the district court’s decision or not, its opinion will be important to insurers questioning when insurance coverage is triggered by an event other than a formal proceeding initiated in a court of law.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products
May 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015).
Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs.
In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
