State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules
July 22, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFOn July 13, 2011, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the US District Court issued a rule in the case of Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Univ. Facilities, Inc. (E.D. La., 2011). In this case, Stanley Smith Drywall was contracted by Capstone Building Corporation to “perform undisclosed work at the facility believed to involve the installation of drywall.” The project involved the design and construction of student residences for the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. In May, 2009, University Facilities, Inc. (UFI) sued Capstone Development Corporation and Capstone On-Campus Management.
State Farm insured Stanley Smith Drywall and they sought a declaration that they have no duty: “(1) to insure Stanley Smith or CBC, or (2) to defend or indemnify any party against UFI's claims in the pending arbitration.” State Farm contends “(1) there is no "occurrence" to trigger coverage under the policy; (2) only breach of contract claims are asserted; (3) there is no property damage alleged; and (4) various coverage limitations and exclusions apply to prevent coverage.’
The court concluded that “whether State Farm has a duty to defend in the arbitration must be determined by considering the claims asserted in the arbitration.” However, the arbitration claims were not made part of the record. There, “, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law State Farm's duty to defend on the present record.” The same was true of State Farm’s duty to indemnify. “Stanley Smith and CBC assert that State Farm's motion for summary judgment was filed before any discovery was conducted in the arbitration proceeding or in this case. The Court finds that State Farm has failed to develop the record sufficiently to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to its duty to indemnify Stanley Smith or CBC in the arbitration.’
The court denied State Farm’s motion for a summary judgment on its duty to defend and indemnify.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine
December 02, 2015 —
Leah B. Mason & Michael J. Worth – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn Brady v. Calsol, Inc. 2015 No. B262028, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed summary judgment for a raw materials supplier where there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the benzene levels contained in the supplier’s mineral spirits could have caused plaintiffs’ leukemia.
Plaintiffs were mechanics Ernest Brady and David Gibbs, who used Safety-Kleen solvent to degrease automotive parts. Brady and Gibbs were diagnosed with leukemia allegedly caused by exposure to Safety-Kleen solvent during the course of their employment. In 2008, Plaintiffs sued Calsol, Inc., a distributor of mineral spirits for the ultimate manufacturer, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. Plaintiffs asserted negligence and strict products liability claims. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that benzene, a carcinogen found in mineral spirits, caused their leukemia. Benzene is only carcinogenic to humans at certain levels. The parties dispute the levels of benzene found in the mineral spirits supplied to Safety-Kleen. Calsol contended the benzene levels were present only in low concentrations. Plaintiffs alleged the benzene levels were capable of causing injury.
Reprinted courtesy of
Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com
Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Welcomes New Attorneys to Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco
October 07, 2019 —
Haight Brown & BonesteelHaight Brown & Bonesteel is happy to announce the addition of new attorneys to our Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco offices.
- Alexandra Angel – Los Angeles: Alexandra is a member of the firm’s Business Solutions, General Liability and Transportation Law Practice Groups. Her practice focuses on a variety of civil litigation matters involving premises liability, personal injury, judgment collection, breach of contract, and landlord-tenant. Her clients have included individual private clients, international property management companies, national and local real estate investment companies, a large car finance company, and local businesses.
- Josh Maltzer – San Francisco: Josh is a partner in the firm’s Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. He is a seasoned civil litigator who focuses his practice on construction defect, general liability and insurance coverage. Josh is an experienced trial attorney who has litigated matters in state and federal courts throughout California and in Arizona, Washington and Wyoming. He has represented business owners, property managers, developers, real estate purchasers and public housing agencies in matters that resulted in millions of dollars in insurance recovers, judgments and settlements for his client.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
Alexandra Angel,
Josh A. Maltzer,
Philip E. McDermott,
Patrick F. McIntyre,
Evan M. Reese, and
Amanda F. Riley
Ms. Angel may be contacted at aangel@hbblaw.com
Mr. Maltzer may be contacted at jmaltzer@hbblaw.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@hbblaw.com
Mr. McIntyre may be contacted at pmcintyre@hbblaw.com
Mr. Reese may be contacted at ereese@hbblaw.com
Ms. Riley may be contacted at ariley@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
It’s Time for a Net Zero Building Boom
May 02, 2022 —
James S. Russell - BloombergIs it too much to ask Americans to take their foot off the gas and reset their thermostats? On March 18, the International Energy Agency released a 10-point plan for reducing oil use, arguing that advanced economies can readily cut demand by 2.7 million barrels a day in the next four months, an amount large enough to avoid major supply shortages as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine roils the energy market.
The plan’s major prescriptions will look familiar to anyone who recalls the OPEC shocks of the 1970s: reducing speed limits to improve gas mileage, boosting transit use, and discouraging non-essential car and air travel. But its exclusive focus on the transportation sector overlooks the substantial efficiency gains to be had from the built environment: Buildings consume about 40% of the energy used in the U.S. every year.
Yet reducing energy use in buildings has been stigmatized by fossil-fuel interests as a lifestyle deprivation — an argument that’s been internalized by pundits and politicians even as geopolitical turmoil drive spikes in oil prices and climate change impacts upend millions of lives.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James S. Russell, Bloomberg
Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects
December 10, 2024 —
Robert A. James, Elina Teplinsky, Alicia M. McKnight, Sidney L. Fowler & Clarence H. Tolliver - Gravel2Gavel BlogOn October 3, 2024, the Department of Energy Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to fund up to $400 million for clean energy projects in rural and remote areas via its Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas program. The NOFO will provide awards ranging from $2 million – $50 million, with plans to fund 20 to 50 projects. Awards will require a non-federal cost share, range across four topic areas, and target projects in rural and remote communities with populations of 10,000 people or fewer.
Eligibility
Applications are open to a wide range of entities, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, state and local governmental entities, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, institutions of higher education, rural electric cooperatives, incorporated and unincorporated consortia, farming associations and cooperatives, and labor unions. Generally applicants must be U.S. entities, but foreign entities may be allowed to participate in limited circumstances. Applicants must identify at least one area in the U.S. or U.S. territories with a population of up to 10,000 people which will benefit from the proposal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury,
Elina Teplinsky, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury,
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and
Clarence H. Tolliver, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Teplinsky may be contacted at elina.teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Tolliver may be contacted at clarence.tolliver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The 2019 ISO Forms: Additions, Revisions, and Pitfalls
February 24, 2020 —
Richard W. Brown, Michael V. Pepe & Janie Reilly Eddy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) issued several new and revised endorsements for use with Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage forms, which became effective December 1, 2019, in most jurisdictions. The new ISO endorsements include several notable changes that Policyholders should be aware of, including revisions to existing Additional Insured (AI), Primary and Noncontributory, and Waiver of Subrogation endorsements, as well as a number of new AI and other endorsement forms. A summary of the more significant elements of new ISO endorsements is provided below.
NEW ISO FORMS
- New AI Endorsements - Automatic Status for Completed Operations
For Contractors, Owners and other construction industry stakeholders, there are two new AI endorsements of note, CG 20 39 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners, Lessee or Contractors – Automatic Status when Required in Written Construction Agreement with You (Completed Operations) and CG 20 40 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners Lessees or Contractors – Automatic Status for Other Parties when Required in Written Construction Agreement (Completed Operations). AI coverage for Completed Operations is generally provided under form CG 20 37, which requires each additional insured to be listed in the endorsement schedule. The new ISO endorsements automatically extend AI status for Completed Operations without having to specifically identify each additional insured, thereby mirroring current AI endorsements that confer automatic AI status for Ongoing Operations (e.g. CG 20 33 and CG 20 38). Thus, the CG 20 39 and CG 20 40, correspond with CG 20 33 (ongoing operations), and CG 20 38 (ongoing operations), respectively, to extend AI coverage for Completed Operations.
Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys
Richard Brown,
Michael V. Pepe and
Janie Reilly Eddy
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Pepe may be contacted at mvp@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Eddy may be contacted at jre@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Differences in Types of Damages Matter
June 22, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsOver the last 7 and a half years (yes I have been doing this for that long), I have often “mused” on various contractual provisions and their application. Why? Because
the contract matters and will be enforced. Provisions like “no damages for delay” and “
pay if paid” litter construction contracts and will be enforced if properly drafted. These types of clauses affect whether and what types of damages you as a construction company can collect.
Of course, these clauses have their limitations. For instance, and as
pointed out by my pal Matt DeVries at his great Best Practices Construction Law blog, not all damages that a subcontractor or general contractor may attribute to coordination or other scheduling related issues are “delay damages” to which a “no damages for delay” clause may apply.
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
Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases
November 21, 2018 —
Jason Plaza - The Subrogation StrategistRecent court decisions have signaled the courts’ proclivity to prefer arbitration over full-fledged litigation when provisions in construction contracts are called into question. While the courts recognize a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial, the courts also lean strongly towards resolving disputes via arbitration as a matter of public policy, especially if a construction contract carves out arbitration as an alternative to litigation.
In Avr Davis Raleigh v. Triangle Constr. Co., 818 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. App. 2018), the North Carolina Appeals Court reviewed the issue of whether the contracting parties selected binding arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The contract at issue was an AIA A201-2007 form document. Under the terms of the contract, the parties elected to arbitrate claims under $500,000 but to litigate claims over this amount. However, if there were several claims under $500,000 but the aggregate of all claims exceeded $500,000, then the contract implied that all claims would be arbitrated. Since the claims involved were an amalgamation of the two, the contracting parties disagreed about whether the arbitration provision would apply. The plaintiff interpreted this provision to mean litigation was mandatory when at least one claim exceeded $500,000 and that arbitration was mandatory when no single claim exceeded this amount. In contrast, the defendant interpreted this provision as meaning that when there were several claims worth less than $500,000 individually, but more than $500,000 aggregately, then all claims must be arbitrated. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Plaza, White & Williams LLP
