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
Arbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)
February 16, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsBe careful with how you act with arbitration clauses in your contracts. If you are not careful in how you act to enforce these clauses, you could find yourself stuck in court whether you like it or not.
As I stated in a recent update to a post last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the issue of a contractor’s waiver of its rights to arbitration under a contract. Briefly, the facts of Forrester v. Penn Lyon Homes, et. al., No. 07-2171 are as follows. The Forrester’s sued Penn Lyon and its warranty company alleging among other things a breach of express warranty based upon a warranty contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause. Instead of immediately alleging an affirmative defense based upon the arbitration clause, the defendants removed the case to federal court and litigated for 18 months before raising the arbitration defense for the first time.
The 4th Circuit (correctly in my opinion) affirmed the lower court and held that the defendants defaulted their right to arbitration because of their actions in defense of the court action and the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by those actions.
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
Value In Being Deemed “Statutory Employer” Under Workers Compensation Law
November 21, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to workers compensation law, as a contractor, there are a couple of important considerations. One, you will be deemed a statutory employer. And two, you want your subcontractors (and, of course, yourself) to have workers compensation insurance so that you can enjoy the protection of workers compensation immunity. Workers compensation immunity provides immunity to an employer (i.e., a statutory employer) by workers compensation insurance becoming the exclusive form of liability.
A recent non-construction case, Bar-Harbour Tower Condominium Association, Inc. v. Bellorin, 47 Fla.L.Weekly D2114a (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), illustrates the importance of these considerations. Here, a condominium association per its governing documents (i.e., declaration of condominium) was authorized to contract for valet parking services for its unit owners. An employee of the valet company (hired by the association) got hurt and sued the association. The association argued it should be deemed a statutory employer under workers compensation law and, as such, entitled to workers compensation immunity. The trial court disagreed, and the association appealed. The Third District Court of Appeal held the association was the statutory employer and, thus, workers compensation immunity did apply.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall
December 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Florida Court of Appeals determined that there was no coverage for damage to the insured's home caused by the installation of Chinese drywall. Peek v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co., 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14147 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2015).
Chinese drywall was installed in the Peek's new home. After moving in, the Peeks reported to American Integrity a sulfur odor caused by the Chinese drywall. The odor caused the Peeks to vacate their home. The Peeks also claimed corrosion and deterioration of copper coils in the air conditioning system were caused by the Chinese drywall.
American Integrity denied coverage based upon policy exclusions for latent defects, corrosion, pollutants, and faulty, inadequate or defective constrution materials. The Peeks sued American Integrity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Automated Weather Insurance Could Offer Help in an Increasingly Hot World
July 10, 2023 —
Michelle Ma - BloombergCarlos José Báez experienced the full brunt of Hurricane Maria when it made landfall in Puerto Rico as a catastrophic storm in 2017.
The auto paint shop owner, who lives in Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico, saw his home badly damaged by Maria’s ferocious winds and rain. Despite submitting claims to his homeowner’s insurance policy for over $25,000, Báez ultimately received a payout of $11,000.
“We had a lot of property damage and insurance, but they didn’t want to pay,” Báez said in an interview in Spanish.
More than
$1.6 billion in insurance claims remained unresolved more than two years after Maria while others were denied completely. The latter happened to Jonathan González’s mother, who waited nearly a year for an adjuster to come take photos of water damage and a broken wheelchair ramp only for the claim to be denied six months later.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Ma, Bloomberg
DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule
September 23, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste.
The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case
May 26, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.
The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“
On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:
“The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”
On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation
June 05, 2017 —
Jon A. Turigliatto & Chelsea L. Zwart - CGDRB News & PublicationsThe Fourth District California Court of Appeal published its decision, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895, et. seq.) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier’s negligence or breach of contract.
In this case, Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA’s complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. At trial, the HOA presented evidence that the pipes supplied by MWI contained manufacturing defects, that they leaked, and that the leaks had caused damage to various parts of the condominium development. The jury returned a special verdict against MWI, and the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury’s finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA’s damages.
MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict prior to the jury’s verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the entry of judgment, both on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused a SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800. MWI relied on the Fourth District’s prior decision in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, and its interpretation therein of Civil Code §936, which states, in relevant part, that the statute applies “to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract….” (emphasis added.) However, the trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, “[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any…material supplier…with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Jon A. Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
