A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall
October 21, 2024 —
Kelly A. Johnson & Damian S. Barquin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. A recent decision by a federal court helps clear the path to coverage for property owners this hurricane season. The Court deemed one property policy’s flood exclusion inapplicable to bar coverage for water damage from backed-up drainage and overflow caused by excessive rainfall. The case, styled G.E.M.S. Partners LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., — F.Supp. 3d —, No. CV 22-1664, 2024 WL 3568932 (D.N.J. July 29, 2024)), involved a familiar dispute between the insured and insurer following damage to covered property after a named storm’s heavy rainfall.
Here, G.E.M.S. Partners LLC (“Insured”) obtained a commercial property policy from AmGUARD Insurance Company (“AmGUARD”) to cover three neighboring buildings in Union, New Jersey. In September 2021, intense rainfall from Hurricane Ida overwhelmed the local infrastructure and sewer system, leading to water leakage from plumbing fixtures at the insured property. To secure coverage under its AmGUARD policy, the Insured wisely relied on its “Water Back-Up and Sump Overflow Endorsement” (“Back-Up/Overflow Endorsement”). Under this endorsement, AmGUARD promised to “pay for ... damage ... caused by ... water ... which backs up through or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer.”1 Indeed, a plumber that inspected the buildings following Hurricane Ida described the root cause of the water damage as a “back up” of “sewer ... water.”2
Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Damian S. Barquin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Barquin may be contacted at DBarquin@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property
April 15, 2015 —
Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property.
In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit
May 02, 2022 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordA contractor facing a lawsuit related to the December partial collapse of an Amazon.com Inc. warehouse that was hit by a tornado is pushing back on claims in a fire marshal’s report that highlighted possible “significant structural issues” with the building.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wyncrest Commons: Commonly Used Progress Payments in Construction Contracts Do Not Render Them Installment Contracts
December 11, 2023 —
Benjamin J. Hochberg - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.In BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc. v. Wyncrest Commons, LP, 2023 WL 7276637 (Unpublished, decided November 3, 2023), the New Jersey Appellate Division was asked to consider two issues regarding the interpretation and application of a construction contract that utilized the standard form American Institute of Architects owner/contractor agreement (AIA Document A101-2007) (the “AIA Contract”). Specifically, it was asked to consider: 1) whether a modified AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” whereby each progress payment was subject to its own statute of limitations; and 2) whether and when work had been approved in the context of New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law. While the decision is presently unpublished, it provides guidance as to how form contracts utilizing the same or similar terms will be treated by New Jersey’s courts and is a reminder that the potential for future claims must be considered during contract negotiations.
Discussion
The primary issue in Wyncrest was whether an AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” and the remaining issues turned on the resolution of this question. Wyncrest, the owner for the project at issue, did not dispute that its contractor, BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc., had not been fully paid for work that it had performed in connection with a construction project located in Ocean County, New Jersey. Instead, Wyncrest argued that because its AIA Contract with BIL-JIM required that invoices be presented and paid monthly, it constituted an “installment contract.” As such, older payments would be treated as individual transactions and were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court agreed with Wyncrest’s characterization of the AIA Contract as an “installment contract,” and found that BIL-JIM’s invoices were each subject to their own statute of limitations. However, the trial court disagreed with Wyncrest’s argument that BIL-JIM’s claim for retainage—which was submitted at the end of its work at the project—was time barred.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Benjamin J. Hochberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Hochberg may be contacted at
bhochberg@pecklaw.com
Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"
September 03, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe New Jersey appellate court found that the unintended and unexpected consequential damages caused by the subcontractor's defective work constituted "property damage" and an "occurrence." Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n v. Adria Towers, L.L.C., 2015 WL 4111890 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 9, 2015).
The insured developer hired subcontractors to perform all of the construction work at a condominium project. The subcontractors failed to properly install the roof, flashing, gutters and leaders, brick and EIFS facade, windows, doors and sealants. The AOAO sued the developer, who served as the general contractor, its insurers, and various subcontractors.The AOAO conceded that replacement costs did not constitute "property damage" and an "occurrence" under the policy.
The faulty workmanship, however, also caused consequential damages to the common areas and unit owners' property, including damage to steel supports, exterior sheathing and interior sheathing and sheetrock, insulation and other interior areas of the building. Nevertheless, the trial judge determined there was no property damage or "occurrence", and granted summary judgment to the insurers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Proposed California Legislation Would Eliminate Certain Obstacles to Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses
July 20, 2020 —
James Hultz & Alan Packer – Newmeyer DillionOn July 2, 2020, the California Legislature amended California Assembly Bill 1552 to help policyholders seeking business interruption coverage for their COVID-19 losses. The draft legislation states the need for the legislation to go into immediate effect in "order to protect the solvency of businesses that were forced to close their doors or limit business" due to the pandemic. If adopted, the proposed legislation would apply to all commercial insurance policies providing coverage for business interruption in effect on and after March 4, 2020.
The proposed legislation would create rebuttable presumptions in favor of coverage for losses due to COVID-19 under Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority and Ingress and Egress policy provisions. For instance, the proposed legislation would create presumptions that COVID-19 was present at the insured premises and caused damage to the insured property. The draft legislation also specifies that the virus shall not be considered a pollutant unless the policy specifies otherwise. The ultimate impact of the draft legislation is unclear however, given that it specifically "does not affect the applicability of any policy provision, including any language addressing loss or damage caused by a virus."
For additional information, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing NDCovid19Response@ndlf.com or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Reprinted courtesy of
James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion and
Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com
Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine
February 10, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine, it determined it did not apply to salvage coverage under an all-risk policy for a rain-damaged building. Fourth Street Place, LLC v. The Travelers Indemn. Co., 2011 Nev LEXIS 114 (Nev. Dec. 29, 2011).
Fourth Street owned an office building which was insured by an all-risk policy issued by Travelers. Fourth Street hired Above It All Roofing to repair the roof of the office building. Above It All removed the waterproof membrane on the roof and prepared to replace the membrane the following week. Over the weekend, however, substantial rain hit. On Sunday, Above It All returned to cover the exposed portions of the roof with tarps, but wind later blew the tarps away. The building suffered significant interior damage as it continued to be exposed to the rain.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause
March 21, 2022 —
Brian C. Padove - ConsensusDocsOne of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract.
In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Padove may be contacted at
bpadove@watttieder.com
