Sinking Buildings on the Rise?
July 01, 2019 —
Jason M. Adams - Gibbs GidenBy now everyone in the construction and insurance industries is familiar with the 58-story Millennium Tower building in San Francisco that has sunk 17 inches and tilted another 14 inches to the northwest. Another recent New York lawsuit alleges that a 58-story luxury Manhattan condo high-rise is also sinking and causing significant damage. With construction booming in the Southeast and other areas with questionable soils, sinking building cases may be on the rise. Given this reality, the issue of subsidence should be of paramount importance to every construction and insurance professional when insuring a project.
Most insurance carriers will include a subsidence and/or other earth movement exclusion on a commercial general liability ("CGL") quote for insurance as a matter of course. Construction professionals (owners/developers, general contractors, and subcontractors) or their brokers may be under the mistaken impression that they have no choice but to accept these subsidence exclusions as part of a standard construction policy. This is not the case. To the contrary, most insurance carriers are willing to remove subsidence exclusions if the underwriters are provided with acceptable geotechnical/soils reports when considering the project.
The insured construction professional often pushes back on the insurance carrier's request for soils reports because the insured sees the request as an unnecessary hassle, expense or unwelcome interference in the job. However, the carrier's soils review is designed to benefit everyone. If potential soils issues are discovered during the underwriting process they can be addressed at the outset of the project rather than after the project is built, which will typically cost substantially more to remedy. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the condition of the soils at the outset of the project allows the risk management team to recognize any potential issues and ensure that the proper coverage is obtained in order to provide protection down the road. Even if the insurance carrier charges more money to sign off on questionable soils after a review of the reports, the slight increase in premium is likely a worthwhile investment in the event of a subsidence loss.
The lesson is that the insured should not blindly accept a subsidence exclusion and should negotiate its removal. The insured should provide its broker and the insurance carrier the information they need in order to make a fully-informed decision as it pertains to the soils. Once the insurance carrier has had the opportunity to review and sign off on the condition of the soil, the carrier should feel comfortable enough to remove any subsidence exclusions or other similar earth movement limitations.
Subsidence is a relatively straightforward issue to deal with as long as the project team’s lawyers, brokers, risk managers and insurance company underwriters are working together toward the common goal of properly evaluating the risk and adequately insuring the project. This simple cooperative process between the entire risk management team could mean the difference between being covered or not covered in the event of a loss related to earth movement.
Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at jadams@gibbsgiden.com.
The content contained herein is published online for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel. The transmission of information by email, or any transmission or exchange of information over the Internet, or by any of the included links is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. This publication may not be reproduced or used in whole or in part without written consent of the author. Copyright 2019 ©
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability
April 22, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies.
In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blackstone Suffers Court Setback in Irish Real Estate Drama
August 20, 2014 —
Donal Griffin and Dara Doyle – BloombergAt 11:15 a.m. on July 29, Irish property developer Michael O’Flynn realized that Blackstone Group LP (BX) was trying to gain control of his real estate empire, which includes the country’s tallest residential tower.
Ten weeks earlier, the private equity firm had bought 1.8 billion euros ($2.4 billion) of loans to O’Flynn’s companies and the developer personally. Coming out of a meeting, he learned Blackstone was demanding the immediate repayment of 16 million euros of personal loans secured on his shareholdings -- even though he wasn’t in default. By the end of the day he had lost control of the business he’d spent more than 30 years building.
“I was shocked that they’d made this demand,” O’Flynn, 57, said in an interview. “It took time to understand the gravity of it because I’ve never been served with a demand in my 36 years of business. I was very recently transferred to Blackstone and I was doing my damnedest to work with them.”
Mr. Doyle may be contacted at ddoyle1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Griffin may be contacted at dgriffin10@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Donal Griffin and Dara Doyle, Bloomberg
Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care
October 10, 2013 —
Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals indicated that there is no professional duty of care applicable to land planners. See Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. v. Coleman Brothers Constr., LLC, 297 P.3d 1042 (Colo. App. 2013). Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. (“SCA”) agreed to provide land planning services to Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (“Coleman”) for property referred to as Crown Mountain in a letter and then verbally agreed to provide a development analysis for another property, located on Emma Road in Basalt, Colorado. Thereafter, SCA sent letters to the defendant concerning the possible subdivision and development of the Emma Road property.
Approximately two years later, SCA sued Coleman for breach of the verbal agreement concerning the Emma Road property. Coleman then asserted counterclaims against SCA for negligently providing inaccurate advice about whether the Emma Road property could be subdivided and developed, and that the county had denied the planned unit development sketch plan SCA prepared and submitted on behalf of Coleman. The district court granted SCA’s motion for summary judgment thereby concluding that the economic loss rule barred Coleman’s negligence counterclaims. The Court of Appeals agreed.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reiterated the economic loss rule espoused in the Colorado Supreme Court in the Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000) case. “Under the economic loss rule, ‘a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather AndersonHeather Anderson can be contacted at
anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause
July 11, 2018 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn recent months, the Northern District of Mississippi has grappled with how to interpret waivers of subrogation in American Institute of Architects (AIA) construction industry contracts and, specifically, how they apply to work versus non-work property. The distinction between work and non-work property has been commonly litigated and remains a hotly debated topic when handling subrogation claims involving construction defects.
In Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fowlkes Plumbing, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23515 (February 12, 2018), a fire consumed the entire insured risk when one of the defendants was performing window restoration services. Subsequently, the insured’s subrogated insurer filed suit against several defendants involved in the construction project at issue. In response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered whether the waiver of subrogation clause in AIA contract form A201-2007 precluded the subrogated insurer from recovering damages from the defendants. The court held that the waiver of subrogation provision contained in AIA document A201-2007 barred the insurer from recovering for damages to the work itself, but did not apply to non-work property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLPMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed
August 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA federal judge dismissed an environmental suit against Lockheed Martin, finding that contamination levels on the plaintiffs’ Moorestown, New Jersey properties were not high enough to pose a health threat, according to the New Jersey Law Journal.
Two owners who live across the street from the plant had “sued under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act and various state statutes.” However, “while the suit was pending, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection raised the threshold for concentration levels of substances such as TCE and PCE to warrant additional testing.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Activity on the Upswing
October 25, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFConstruction industry experts are now predicting that not only will 2013 be a growth year for construction, but that the industry will continue to grow through 2015. Predictions at the recent webinar, “The 2014 Outlook: Emerging Opportunities for Construction,” included that growth in the housing market will endure, commercial construction will improve, and that overall construction spending will increase.
This is in the face of what Bernard Markstein, the chief economist at Reed Construction Data, calls “barely acceptable” economic growth. Mr. Markstein also feels that the government shutdown will have an effect on growth of the gross domestic product.
One area of construction that is not expected to do well in the short term is retail. The economists noted that more shoppers are turning to online buying. Need for office space is also shrinking. Despite this, the group projected “high-single-digit growth” through 2014.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?
July 15, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA general release of “unknown” claims through the effective date of the release does NOT bar “unaccrued” claims. This is especially important when it comes to fraud claims where the facts giving rise to the fraud may have occurred prior to the effective date in the release, but a party did not learn of the fraud until well after the effective date in the release. A recent opinion maintained that a general release that bars unknown claims does NOT mean a fraud claim will be barred since the last element to prove a fraud had not occurred, and thus, the fraud claim had not accrued until after the effective date in the release. See Falsetto v. Liss, Fla. L. Weekly D1340D (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The 2014 [Settlement] Agreement’s plain language released the parties only from “known or unknown” claims, not future or unaccrued claims. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the fraud claim had accrued — that is, whether Falsetto [party to Settlement Agreement] knew or through the exercise of due diligence should have known about the alleged fraud at the time the 2014 Agreement was executed — the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those fraud claims.”).
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
