COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?
September 23, 2024 —
Patrick McKnight - The Dispute ResolverFour and half years ago the COVID-19 pandemic spread around the globe, bringing with it interesting, but challenging, legal problems for construction attorneys. Construction projects ground to a halt. Ever-changing guidance from authorities ranging from the U.S. Department of Labor to local health authorities resulted in a web of evolving obligations for general contractors and subs alike. One of the most closely watched legal questions was the wave of business interruption claims filed by plaintiffs, many of whom owned businesses impacted by government shutdowns. During the opening months of the pandemic, I
noted that hundreds of business interruption claims had been filed by insureds across the country. At that time, the only thing certain was that although the outcome remained unknown, virus exclusions were likely to become more likely in the future. Needless to say, much has happened since early 2020.
What does the data say about the outcome of business interruption claims?
In sum, plaintiffs have had an uphill battle. A helpful resource for analyzing the outcome of business interruption suits is the
Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker (“Tracker”), an insurance law analytics tool offered by Penn Carey Law of the University of Pennsylvania. According to its website, “[t]he Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker is a multi-sourced database and dashboard through which to view the unfolding insurance litigation arising out of the pandemic in federal and state courts. Widely cited in briefs, judicial opinions, and the press, the tracker also serves as a proof of concept for new methods to identify, track, and understand emerging case congregations in real time.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLPMr. McKnight may be contacted at
pmcknight@foxrothschild.com
Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.
The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”
In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”
Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses
October 11, 2021 —
Rondi J. Walsh - Newmeyer DillionOn October 1, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a trio of cases involving COVID-19 business interruption losses, in a series of written opinions with results favoring the insurers. Despite the slate of wins for insurers in this round of cases, these rulings are limited to cases where policyholders either did not allege the presence of COVID-19 on their premises causing “physical alteration” of the property itself, or had a virus exclusion in their policy, or both. This leaves room for future cases potentially ruling in favor of coverage where the insureds allege the presence of coronavirus on the premises, and that there was a detrimental physical alteration of the property as a result. To date, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on such a situation.
RULING 1: Mudpie v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co. of America
The Ninth Circuit first considered a proposed class action brought by a children’s store operator, Mudpie. Mudpie sought business income and extra expense coverage from Travelers after California and local authorities issued shutdown orders impacting Mudpie’s operations due to COVID-19. (Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Case No. 20-16858, --- F.4th --- (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021).) Travelers denied coverage, asserting that the claim did not involve “direct physical loss of or damage to” property “caused by or resulting from a covered Cause of Loss.” Travelers also denied coverage under language excluding “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus…that induces…physical distress, illness or disease.” Applying California law, the trial court agreed with Travelers on both accounts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rondi J. Walsh, Newmeyer DillionMs. Walsh may be contacted at
rondi.walsh@ndlf.com
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.
October 23, 2012 —
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellGene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.
In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.
Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage
November 15, 2017 —
K. Alexandra Byrd – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, published an important decision addressing several fundamental issues regarding how a commercial general liability (CGL) policy applies to long-term property damage. The court held that: (1) a continuous trigger theory of coverage may be applied to third-party liability claims involving progressive property damage caused by an insured’s allegedly defective work; (2) the “last pull” (i.e., the cutoff point) of the continuous trigger is when the “essential nature and scope” of the property damage first becomes known or could reasonably be known; and (3) the “last pull” is not when the property damage is “attributed” to the insured’s faulty work.
The underlying action in Air Master & Cooling Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., et al. 1 concerned property damage arising out of the construction of a seven-story, 101-unit condominium building in Montclair, New Jersey. The project’s construction manager hired Air Master & Cooling, Inc. (Air Master) to perform HVAC work on the project, including installing individual HVAC equipment in each resident’s unit from 2005 to 2008. In early 2008, unit owners began complaining about water infiltration and damage to their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. The general contractor and developer began assessing the damage and making repairs. Eventually, in April 2010, an expert consultant performed a moisture survey of the roof and discovered 111 areas that were damaged by water infiltration. The expert report indicated that “it [was] impossible to determine when [the] moisture infiltration occurred.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Byrd may be contacted at
kab@sdvlaw.com
Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition
April 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to GlobeSt.com, “Homebuilder Trumark Homes has hired James Furey as VP of land acquisition.” The “veteran developer” has held positions at Meritage Homes, Richmond American Homes, and Beazer Homes USA.
“James is a versatile manager who brings a wealth of experience in many elements of the homebuilding process,” Jason Kliewer, partner and general counsel for Trumark, told GlobeSt.com. “He will be an invaluable asset as Trumark moves aggressively in the California market.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia
January 05, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsOne of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not.
A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language.
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
Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders
May 11, 2020 —
Alan Packer & James Hultz - Newmeyer DillionFor years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims.
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and
James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
