No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage
October 10, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the district of Hawaii granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment determining there was not duty to defend and no duty to indemnify the insured under a homeowner's policy. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rosfeld, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139123 (D. Haw. Aug. 4, 2022).
The insured homeowners were sued in the underlying case for alleged failure to disclose poor flooding and plumbing issues during a December 2016 sale of the residence on Kauai. The disclosure statement purportedly made false representations and omitted material facts regarding various issues with the residence. The disclosure statement noted no sewage, drainage, water-related, or grading problems on the property, no damage to structures from flooding or leaks, no defects in the foundations or slabs, and no defects in the interior walls, baseboards or trim despite the insureds having experienced such issues during their ownership. The underlying complaint further alleged that the property had a history of drainage problems dating to 2006 and 2007, which the insureds knew about, or should have known about, when completing the disclosure statement. The insureds made a claim with Allstate in 2014 under their flood and homeowners policies for flooding or seepage into the basement of the house.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins
September 01, 2016 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMake the following inquiry of your constructional lawyer, watch him/her sit up in his/her chair and give your question immediate attention: “I haven’t been paid, can I walk off the job?” The answer to this question is a strong “maybe, but it’s risky.” Walking off the project has a significant downside. The risk is that the judge who reviews your decision, sometimes years after the event, may not agree that the non-payment was a material breach and, thus, suspension of performance (walking off) is not justified.
A breach of contract occurs where, without legal justification, a party fails to perform any promise that forms a whole or part of the contract. Not all breaches are equal. Some failures to perform a promise are “nominal,” “trifling” or “technical.” These breaches do not excuse performance under the contract by the non-breaching party. If the breach is “material,” that is, goes to the essential purpose of the agreement, is a question that only a judge decides, and only after the decision was made as to whether to walk off the job or not. Therefore, before deciding whether to walk off the job, you have to second guess what a judge may decide under the circumstances. Since not all judges see things the same way, the decision is fraught with uncertainty and risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy
April 15, 2015 —
Marc S. Casarino – White and Williams LLPGuided by federal case law, on March 31, 2015 a Delaware state court held for the first time in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Services LLC that a builder’s poor workmanship is not an occurrence for which the builder’s insurance policy affords coverage. In the underlying case giving rise to the coverage dispute, a homeowner alleged that a builder deviated from approved building plans, used inadequate materials, improperly installed materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that a home was properly constructed. The homeowner sued the builder under theories of negligence, negligence per se, and fraud. The insurer denied the builder’s request for defense and indemnification for the homeowner’s claims, citing in part that the allegations of defective workmanship did not qualify as an “occurrence” as defined by the builder’s insurance policy.
The builder did not dispute that the underlying complaint alleged defective workmanship. However, the builder asserted that because it had not yet been proven that its work was defective, the insurer had prematurely denied coverage. The court properly rejected the builder’s argument, and reiterated that under Delaware law the court must compare the allegations of the complaint to the insurance policy terms to make a coverage determination. Whether the complaint’s allegations are ultimately meritorious is irrelevant to the initial coverage determination according to the court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLPMr. Casarino may be contacted at
casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com
Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims
July 06, 2020 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies.
AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance
April 15, 2024 —
Linda Carter - Kahana FeldOn April 3, 2024, Kahana Feld’s Co-Founding Partner, Jason Feld was honored by the Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) with the Inaugural Volunteer of the Year award.
The CEO of CLM, Ronna Ruppelt stated, “The new CLM Volunteer of the Year award honors dedicated members who passionately serve the CLM community. Jason’s service spans over a decade as both the President and Director of Events for the Orange County Chapter. Under his guidance, this chapter has flourished – not only educating and connecting the CLM community but rallying members to give back to the local community through service events in the process. Jason is also a frequent writer, speaker, and contributor for CLM events, and we are proud to honor him as our inaugural CLM Volunteer of the Year.”
Mr. Feld is a renowned nationwide construction claims leader who actively speaks at industry events. He serves as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers and provides personal counsel for multiple national and regional builders, developers, and contractors. With his vast experience and expertise, Mr. Feld is a trusted authority in the field and is highly regarded for his legal representation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Carter, Kahana FeldMs. Carter may be contacted at
lcarter@kahanafeld.com
Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?
November 03, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsI have spoken on many occasions here at Construction Law Musings and elsewhere about the risks and rewards for contractors found in sustainable construction. The rewards were fairly apparent. New markets, government incentives and the desires of owners to be “green” clearly point toward a need for contractors to get into the sustainable building game.
However, when I was first writing my Eeyore like thoughts most of the thoughts of all us construction attorneys were speculative. Whether because wholesale “green” construction was relatively new or because the court process was relatively slow, there were not many ways to test if our, shall we say “less optimistic,” predictions were going to come to pass.
For better or worse, several of the more dire predictions have come true. One major green construction debacle is the Destiny USA litigation. I cannot possibly set out all of the various issues as well as my friend and colleague Chris Cheatham does in his e-book about the project and its aftermath. I highly recommend this e-book and the posts found at Chris’ Green Building Law Update blog for those of you interested in how the IRS, the USGBC and the Green Bonds Program interact to cause many a pitfall for construction and design professionals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York
May 29, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneNew York recently enacted legislation known as Carlos’ Law, which increases penalties for corporate liability for the death of, or serious injury to, an employee. The bill, S.621B / A.4947B, was named after Carlos Moncayo, a construction worker killed in a trench collapse on a New York City construction project. Moncayo’s employer repeatedly flouted safety rules and ignored warnings of dangerous conditions on its construction site before failing to properly support the trench that collapsed and killed Moncayo. Moncayo’s employer was convicted for his death, but the penalty was light. The company was sentenced to pay only $10,000, the maximum penalty at the time for any company convicted of a felony in New York State. The legislature responded with Carlos’ Law, which increases accountability for “employers,” and expands the scope of “employees” covered.
The corporate criminal law, NY Penal § 20.20(2)(c)(iv), imposes liability on an employer when “the conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and on behalf of the corporation, and the offense is . . . in relation to a crime involving the death or serious physical injury of an employee where the corporation acted negligently, recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly.” An “agent” of an employer is any “director, officer or employee of a corporation, or any other person who is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation.” § 20.20(a). An “employee” now includes any person providing labor or services for remuneration for a private entity or business within New York State without regard to an individual’s immigration status, and includes part-time workers, independent contractors, apprentices, day laborers and other workers. § 10.00 (22). The penalties for criminal corporate liability for the death or serious injury of an employee now include maximums of $500,000 when centered on a felony, and $300,000 when centered on a misdemeanor. § 80.10(1)(a) and (b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute
February 18, 2019 —
Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn its recent decision in Steadfast Insurance Company v. Greenwich Insurance Company, 2019 WL 323702 (Wis. Jan. 25, 2019), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed the issue of contribution rights as among co-insurers.
Steadfast and Greenwich issued pollution liability policies to different entities that performed sewer-related services for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) at different times. MMSD sought coverage under both policies in connection with underlying claims involving pollution-related loss. Both insurers agreed that MMSD qualified as an additional insured under their respective policies, but Greenwich took the position that its coverage was excess over the coverage afforded under the Steadfast policy, at least for defense purposes, and that as such, it had no defense obligation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Margolies, Traub LiebermanMr. Margolies may be contacted at
bmargolies@tlsslaw.com
