Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment
January 02, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiReversing the intermediate appellate court, the Florida Supreme Court held the insurer liable for bad faith despite imperfect actions by the insured. Harvey v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1705 (Fla. Sept. 20, 2018).
Insured James Harvey was involved in an auto accident in which the other driver, 51 year old John Potts, was killed. Harvey's vehicle was registered in both his name and his business's name, and was covered under a $100,000 liability policy. Harvey reported the accident to his insurer, GEICO. The claim was assigned to a claims adjuster, Fran Korkus.
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
What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?
October 02, 2018 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’MearaThe implied warranty of habitability plays an important role in our understanding of the relationship between tenant and landlord; it helps to define the parameters and requirements of contracts between tenant and the owner. In doing so, the implied warranty of habitability is meant to ensure that a home or rental unit is in a livable condition. In this article, we’ll take a look at what the warranty of habitability is, how it developed, and what differentiates the warranty of habitability from the previous landlord-tenant law.
Background of the Implied Warranty of Habitability
When someone hears about the warranty of habitability, their first question is usually “what is the implied warranty of habitability?” This is understandable, given that the implied warranty of habitability isn’t exactly well known. Most renters have probably never heard of the implied warranty of habitability, despite the fact that it provides important safeguards for tenant’s rights. In order to gain a better understanding of what the implied warranty of habitability is, it is helpful to understand what state of affairs existed prior to the adoption of an implied warranty of habitability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business
February 06, 2019 —
Danielle Carter - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPThe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities against discrimination in three important settings:
1. Employment (ADA Title I)
2. Government Services and Public Transportation (ADA Title II)
3. Commercial Facilities and Places of Public Accommodation (ADA Title III)
Since business owners typically act as both employers and facility managers, they must pay careful attention to Title I and Title III of the ADA. A business owner’s ADA compliance checklist should include the following:
1. ADA Compliance Audit for Structural Accessibility. The ADA and its accompanying regulations set forth detailed legal standards and requirements for accessible design, which specify, for example, the minimum width of doors to conference rooms, the maximum height of public drinking fountains, and the maximum thickness of hallway carpeting. Many older buildings were built without features that accommodate people with disabilities, such that the ADA may require improvements to be made to existing facilities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle Carter, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPMs. Carter may be contacted at
info@bremerwhyte.com
Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nevada Supreme Court started hearings on Tuesday, June 4 over the fate of Harmon towers. MGM Resorts is hoping to obtain permission from the court to tear down the tower, which they claim could collapse should an earthquake strike Las Vegas. Perini Corp, the builder, wants the building to remain standing in order to support their claim that the building’s flaws are through design and not construction errors.
KLAS quoted one of Perini’s lawyers claiming that MGM had pursued a media strategy to prejudice potential jurors against the contractor. “CityCenter hired Cedric and Bunting to place advertisements with the media to win the hearts and minds of the community and to convince the public pretrial that Perini was, quote, ‘scum of the earth.’”
If the Supreme Court gives the go-ahead, demolition would begin soon. Still pending, is the $500 lawsuit over the allegations of construction defects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage
December 29, 2020 —
Joseph Reynolds - Construction ExecutiveNew faulty workmanship coverage forms have emerged to potentially address the “your work” exposure found in most contractors professional liability (CPrL) policies. Once offered by only a single carrier, several insurers have recently entered the marketplace to cover the cost to repair or replace faulty work or the related material costs associated with the “self-performed work” of general and trade contractors.
Commonly serving as a separate insuring agreement and offered in carrier-specific CPrL policies, faulty workmanship coverage forms are designed to protect contractors from the “your work” claims triggered by project owners and other third parties. This includes the contractor’s workmanship as well as the equipment, parts and materials such as steel beams, epoxy activators and anchor bolts used to perform construction work.
Insureds should be aware that exclusions and strict conditions apply. For instance, faulty workmanship policies typically do not cover resulting bodily injury and property damage and some policies even exclude project delays and other business risks that can arise from the claims of unhappy customers. Another potentially confusing issue is the scope of coverage offered under a ‘faulty work’ endorsement. While some faulty workmanship enhancements are specifically-designed to cover “your work,” claims, others may only cover the products manufactured or fabricated by the insured and not the work they perform or install.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph Reynolds, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at
joseph.reynolds@rtspecialty.com
How Finns Cut Construction Lead Times in Half
December 17, 2024 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessRakennustieto organized a Q&A on December 5, 2024, titled “Halving Construction Lead Times—Responsible or Irresponsible?” The discussion focused on speeding up residential construction and renovations.
The experts answering questions were representatives from two Finnish contractors (COfLOW and Fira), a client organization (HOAS), a building materials retailer (STARK), and a research institute.
Can you halve construction lead time without sacrificing quality?
Jaana Matilainen of Rakennustieto asked the panelists whether halving construction time is a realistic goal today, whether they can provide any examples, and if the speed-up has increased or decreased quality.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations
June 14, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn the preceding
posting, I wrote about making sure you comply with your property insurance policy’s post-loss policy obligations. By failing to comply, you can render your policy ineffective meaning you are forfeiting otherwise valid insurance coverage, which was the situation discussed in the preceding posting. As an insured, you should never want this to occur!
In another case, discussed
here, the property insurance policy had a preferred contractor endorsement. This means that instead of paying the insured insurance proceeds, the insurer could perform the repairs with its preferred contractor. Typically, the insured will pay a discount on their premium for this preferred contractor endorsement. The insurer elected to move forward with the repairs based on the preferred contractor endorsement but the insured performed the repairs on his own and then sold the house. By doing this, the appellate court held the insured rendered his policy ineffective by breaching his own policy (and failing to allow this post-loss obligation to take place). The explicit terms of the policy allowed the insurer to perform the repairs instead of paying the insured insurance proceeds. The court could NOT rewrite the post-loss obligations in the policy by requiring the insurer to pay insurance proceeds when the insurer, per the preferred contractor endorsement, elected to perform the repairs.
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
Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL
August 03, 2020 —
Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn - Newmeyer DillionOn June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020).
In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5.
In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id.
The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10.
Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id.
Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
