Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage
March 14, 2018 —
Alan Packer and Graham Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPUnfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in
Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense.
In
Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage.
After the
Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense.
The key issue before the
Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued.
In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the
Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may
potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid.
While
Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs.
Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under
Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later.
Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com.
Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com.
ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating.
For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588
December 22, 2019 —
Jordan Golden - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogBelow is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry.
Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes
Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1
The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit
August 24, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057796, filed 5/27/20, ord. pub. 6/18/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer’s special Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion to strike because, while the alleged acts were generally connected to litigation, they did not include any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body and, therefore, did not constitute protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
In Trilogy Plumbing, the policyholder was sued in 33 different construction defect lawsuits, some of which Navigators defended, and others which were denied or had the defense withdrawn. The Navigators’ policies were subject to a $5,000 deductible, and Trilogy alleged that Navigators breached the contracts by “demanding deductible reimbursement amounts greater than the policies’ $5,000 stated deductible, and by seeking reimbursement of ordinary defense fees and expenses as if they were subject to deductible reimbursement,” “claiming a right to seek reimbursement from Trilogy for defense fees and expenses Navigators paid for the benefit of third-party additional insureds,” “providing conflicted defense counsel who took instructions only from Navigators without disclosing conflicts of interest,” “failing to reasonably settle cases and by withdrawing [the] defense as a strategic means of trying to force Trilogy to fund its own settlements,” “misrepresenting its deductible provisions,” “refusing to account for deductible amounts it charges and collects,” and others.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90
July 25, 2021 —
The Associated Press (Freida Frisaro & Bobby Caina Calvan) - BloombergAuthorities searching for victims of a deadly collapse in Florida said Sunday they hope to conclude their painstaking work in the coming weeks as a team of first responders from Israel departed the site.
Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava said 90 deaths have now been confirmed in last month's collapse of the 12-story Champlain Towers South in Surfside, up from 86 a day before. Among them are 71 bodies that have been identified, and their families have been notified, she said. Some 31 people remain listed as missing.
The Miami-Dade Police Department said three young children were among those recently identified.
Crews continued to search the remaining pile of rubble, peeling layer after layer of debris in search of bodies. The unrelenting search has resulted in the recovery of over 14 million pounds (about 6.4 million kilograms) of concrete and debris, Levine Cava said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”
April 02, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA company which is in the business of posting “advertising signs on temporary construction sites on behalf of clients” was “sued for trespass, conversion, and other torts” when it entered a site to remove posters. The company sought to have its insurance carrier cover the cost of its defense but was refused. A federal court lawsuit in California against the insurer ensued. The insurer prevailed on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, and the insured appealed.
At issue: had an “occurrence” under the CGL policy taken place – that is, an “accident,” an “unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown cause?” The appellate court noted that the company’s contractor “intended” to enter the work site and remove posters, which gave rise to the trespass claim. For its part, the company urged that the contractor’s actions “were based on erroneous information… [a] mistaken belief that it had the right or duty to enter the site and remove the posters….”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel
February 25, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit determined that the trial court did not err by refusing to give preclusive effect to findings made in the underlying state-court action because there was no collateral estoppel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharif, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2114 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014).
Bashir's owned a grocery and was insured by Nationwide. The decedent was accidentally killed by a pistol stored under the cash register. The decedent's personal representative sued Bashir in state court. Nationwide declined to defend because it maintained that the employment exclusion applied to bar coverage.
The personal representative argued two alternative claims, the first assuming the decedent was not an employee of Bashir's and the second assuming that he was. The state court granted a motion to dismiss the second claim that the decedent was an employee. In a subsequent trial, judgment was awarded against Bashir and another defendant in the amount of $950,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries
July 30, 2015 —
Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (No. B252566, filed June 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a brake grinding machine. The Court cited an exception to the general rule that manufacturers may not be held liable, under a strict products liability theory, where the plaintiff’s injuries arise from other products that are used in conjunction with the defendant’s product.
Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Sherman, was an automobile mechanic from 1962 to 1977. Mr. Sherman alleged that during this period he used an arcing machine, which abraded brake linings by means of sand paper moving at high speeds. Sherman alleged the machine released asbestos dust, which he then brought home, exposing his wife Debra Sherman to asbestos. Ms. Sherman developed mesothelioma and passed away from exposure to the asbestos dust carried home by her husband.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristian B. Moriarty,
R. Bryan Martin and
Lee Marshall of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication
October 09, 2023 —
Tim Capowski & Chris Theobalt - Kahana FeldOver the past few years, the plaintiff bar has expanded its use of improper anchoring tactics. Historically, improper anchoring was seen as a risky tactic in which a plaintiff’s counsel would suggest an outrageous figure for pain and suffering during summation in the hope that the lay jury would either award it or split the difference (cut the suggested figure by half) and, either way, return an excessive or runaway verdict. Plaintiff counsel deployed the tactic infrequently through the turn of the century for fear of alienating the jury by appearing greedy.
Two interrelated factors happened to change this dynamic. First, the plaintiff bar worked extremely hard in the intervening years with great success to shed its “ambulance chaser” stereotype by marketing itself as the “protector of the vulnerable”. Second, with the rise in Reptile and punitive tactics spawned in part by the publication of the Reptile handbook, the plaintiff bar also discovered that juries were not alienated by outrageous anchors as long as they were preceded by Reptile commentary essentially to “prime” the jury to punish the defendant rather than compensate the plaintiff with its award.
This is not speculation. I recall sitting outside a courtroom with one of New York’s top plaintiff attorneys in 2006 during deliberations on a catastrophic personal injury trial, during which he conceded to me that he was worried he had asked the jury for too large a figure (it was not even eight figures). A decade later in 2016, that same attorney felt no trepidation in requesting nearly $100 million for a comparable injury. He fed the jurors a steady diet of Reptile tactics from start to finish and they dutifully awarded the requested figure. Our research confirms that this two-step strategy (Reptile + improper anchor) preceded every New York nuclear verdict returned from 2010-2022. The same is almost certainly true of most nuclear verdicts in other jurisdictions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tim Capowski, Kahana Feld and
Chris Theobalt, Kahana Feld
Mr. Capowski may be contacted at tcapowski@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Theobalt may be contacted at ctheobalt@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
