Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion
July 01, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit held that a claim for advertising injury was properly denied under the prior publication exclusion. Street Surfing, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10737 (9th Cir. June 10, 2014).
Street Surfing began selling a two-wheeled, inline skateboard called the "Wave" in December 2004. By 2007, Street Surfing also sold and advertised accessories for the Wave, such as "Lime Green Street Surfing Wheels for The Wave," and the "New Ultimate Street Surfer Wheel Set."
Rhyn Noll, who owned the registered trademark "Streetsurfer," sued Street Surfing in June 2008, claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition and unfair trade practices. Street Surfing had known that Noll owned the "Streetsurfer" trademark since early 2005. In September 2008, Street Surfing submitted a claim for coverage to Great American and tendered Noll's complaint.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado
August 22, 2022 —
Ricky Nolen - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogMunicipal ordinances may provide additional defenses for construction professionals where state law does not provide sufficient protection for Colorado’s builders. Colorado state law can be a minefield of potential liability for construction professionals. Even though the state legislature has stated that it must “recognize that Construction defect laws are an existing policy issue that many developers indicate adds to for-sale costs,” the legislature has remained hesitant to provide any meaningful protection from construction defect claims, resulting in almost unlimited exposure for Colorado’s construction professionals.
Given this background of state laws that do not go far enough in protecting Colorado’s construction professionals, it may be fruitful to review municipal ordinances for new defenses and to temper state law developments applicable to construction defect claims. This is an area of law that is only just developing in Colorado. In fact, the ordinances discussed in this article were only passed in the last two years with many cities only adopting the present versions of the ordinances in 2021. The two model ordinances discussed below are potentially helpful in three ways. The first model ordinance gives construction professionals a right to repair defects in the multi-family construction and in the common interest community context. The second model ordinance is helpful in two ways. First, it establishes that homeowners associations may not unilaterally circumvent ADR protections included in the original declarations for such communities.[1] Second, the ordinance reduces the risk that strict liability will be imposed on a construction professional where a building code is violated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ricky Nolen, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Nolen may be contacted at
nolen@hhmrlaw.com
Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts
January 31, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsAh yes, retainage, what could represent your profit on a project and something frequently abused by owners on private and public projects alike. Fortunately, Pennsylvania law offers public works contractors some protection from retainage abuse. The Public Prompt Payment Act dictates when retainage can be withheld and when it must be released. Agencies that fail to follow the Prompt Payment Act’s retainage rules can end up owing you interest, penalty, and attorney’s fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.
October 23, 2012 —
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellGene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.
In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.
Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation.
There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it.
After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors.
Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations.
Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.”
In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.”
The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License
March 04, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs a Virginia construction attorney, I often get calls for assistance in dealing with payment disputes. Frequently, these calls come from out of state contractors and subcontractors that have performed work in Virginia.
One of the first questions that I ask is whether these contractors and subcontractors hold a contractor license from the Commonwealth of Virginia. While most do, some do not, likely because they are unaware of the requirement in Virginia that all contractors be licensed when performing work in the Commonwealth. While I haven’t done an exhaustive survey of the statutes and regulations of every state of the union on this point, the confused silence leads me to believe that such is not a requirement in every state. The most common reaction after “I had no idea I needed one” is that the general contractor holds a license so they did not think they needed to hold one. As I stated above, this is incorrect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogThe Phoenix Metro area is finally pulling out of the Great Recession of 2008. Potential homebuyers are frantically looking to buy a home before interest rates rise and prices continue their ascent to normalcy. For the last several months, residential construction builders have continued to buy more land around the Valley of the Sun for new subdivisions, especially in North Phoenix and the East Valley. In fact, from January through May of 2013, in the Phoenix Metro area alone, 86 new communities have come to fruition—more than all of 2012. Nationally, single-family housing starts reached 667,000 in December 2013 according to the National Association of Home Builders tracking of single-family home starts, which is comparable to 1985 levels.
It has been well documented that since the conclusion of World War II, Arizona’s population growth fostered new home construction at a rapid, almost unmatched pace. At the 2006 construction peak, Arizona’s residential construction output climbed to 64,000, more than double the average 20,000 to 30,000 new homes that are typically constructed annually. Building rates have not come close to the 2006 numbers, but new home starts increased 70 percent since 2012.
So after six years after the real estate bubble popped, is the construction industry in Arizona finally back to normal? It depends on your definition of “normal.”
In 2009, foreclosures reached alarming proportions. However, in 2010, the engine of Arizona’s population growth, the Phoenix Metro area, began to grow again. Since 2010, Maricopa County had added 125,000 residents. There is strong demand for new housing, and appreciating housing prices has let the construction industry get back on its feet. In residential construction, supply is tight, and all cash offers are common. We all know that Wall Street played a huge role in creating the housing bubble, and eventual bust, by facilitating the use of risky, sub-prime mortgages and turning them into securities that were sold to investors, pension-funds, and the like.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .
June 21, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRecently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion.
In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
