New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims
March 01, 2021 —
Jasjeet K. Sahani - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.New York law has historically allowed insurers to recoup defense costs paid on behalf of an insured if there is ultimately no coverage for the underlying action, provided that the insurer reserved its rights to seek reimbursement. On December 30, 2020, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department declined to follow this longstanding principle in American Western Home Insurance Co. v. Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co.,1 by holding that the insurer was not entitled to recoup defense costs, even where it was determined that the claim was not covered under the insurance policy.
In American W. Home Ins. Co., the insureds were named as defendants in an underlying personal injury action. More than four years after the accident, and a $900,000 default judgment against the insureds, they tendered the lawsuit to their commercial general liability insurer, American Western Home Insurance Company (“American”). American denied coverage based on untimely notice, but after the default judgment was subsequently vacated, it agreed to defend the underlying action subject to a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights specifically reserved American’s right to deny coverage if the vacatur of the default judgment against the insureds was reversed. Further, American reserved its right to recover the costs of defending the underlying litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Sahani may be contacted at
JSahani@sdvlaw.com
Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate
November 23, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesTeaming agreements are practical and useful agreements on public projects where a prime contractor teams with a subcontractor for purposes of submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation. The prime contractor and subcontractor work together to pursue that solicitation and have the government award the contract to the prime contractor. The teaming agreement allows for information to be confidentially shared (estimating and pricing, construction methodologies, systems, and suggestions, value engineering, etc.) where the subcontractor agrees that it will only pursue the solicitation with the prime contractor. In other words, the subcontractor ideally is not going to submit pricing to another prime contractor proposing or bidding on the same project and is not going to share information the prime contractor has furnished to it. Likewise, the prime contractor is not going to use the subcontractor’s information for purposes of finding another subcontractor at a lower price and is agreeing to use its good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract with the subcontractor if it is awarded the project. This is all memorialized in the teaming agreement.
The potential problem lies with language that requires the parties to use their good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract if the project is awarded to the prime contractor. In essence, this can become a disfavored “agreement to agree” to a future contract that could allow either party to create an argument to back out of the deal under the auspice that they could not come to terms with the subcontract.
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
Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court.
The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.”
The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties.
Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment.
The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.”
The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors.
The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.”
The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies
August 14, 2018 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.According to W. Matthew Bryant of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, the Ohio Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not a general contractor's commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance policy may provide coverage for damage caused by a subcontractor's defective construction work.
Bryant explained the status quo in Ohio: “Since 2012, Ohio has followed the rule that a CGL policy would not cover damage caused by a contractor to the contractor's own work.” That could change depending on how the Ohio Supreme Court rules in an upcoming case: “The Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether to affirm or overturn Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., 77 N.E.3d 538 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) ("ONU"), an Ohio Court of Appeals decision holding that CGL coverage may exist for property damage caused by faulty work performed by the subcontractor of an insured general contractor.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Protect Workers From Falls: A Leading Cause of Death
August 14, 2018 —
Mark McGhiey - Construction ExecutiveOne of the leading causes of death for construction workers is falls from elevated surfaces, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2016, these accidents accounted for more than 30 percent of all construction fatalities. The top four causes of worker deaths (excluding highway collisions) in the private sector construction industry are:
- falls: 384 (38.7%);
- struck by object: 93 (9.4 percent);
- electrocutions: 82 (8.3 percent); and
- caught-in/between:1 72 (7.3 percent).
One of the most common — and costly — causes of claims occur when construction workers fall from elevated surfaces. These accidents represent more than 30 percent of all construction claim payments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark McGhiey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution
August 05, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFLawyers are still working out all the implications of Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Maronda Homes. Three members of the firm Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed PA, Alexander Dobrev, Michael S. Provenzale, and Tara L. Tedrow on the firm’s web site. They characterize it as a “consumer-protection oriented decision,” quoting the court that the “house is the fondest dream and largest investment, both emotionally and financially, for Florida families.”
The court found that Section 553.835 of the Florida laws could not be applied to construction that occurred before the statute become effective in July, 2012. They describe the underlying issue as “the culmination of forty years of evolution to the implied warranty of habitability that is granted by the builder of a new home to the purchaser.” This lead to a 2010 District Court decision that expanded the area covered from “merely the structure itself, along with improvements ‘immediately supporting the residence’” but also those “which provide ‘essential services’ which support the home, make it habitable, or are necessary for living accommodations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Thinking About a Daubert Motion to Challenge an Expert Opinion?
February 06, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen you receive an expert opinion, one of the first things you are considering is whether it is worth filing a Daubert motion / challenge. A Daubert motion is a generally a pretrial motion you are using to challenge the admissibility of the expert opinion. Keep in mind this deals with the admissibility, not the credibility, of the expert opinion. A Daubert motion is based on three prongs that must be answered: 1) is the witness qualified to render the expert opinion?; 2) is the expert’s opinion reliable?; and 3) is the expert’s opinion relevant?.
A Daubert motion is premised after Federal Rule of Evidence 702 that provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
- the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
- the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
- the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
- the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
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
Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado
June 28, 2021 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.”
By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
