COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Finding Insurer's Declaratory Relief Action Raises Unsettled Questions of State Law, Case is Dismissed

November 05, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the District of Hawaii dismissed the insurer's action for declaratory relief because it raised issues that were unsettled by Hawaii courts. Association of Apartment Owners of Lahaina Residential Condominium, et al., No. 1-24-cv-00075-JAO-BMK, Order Granting AOAO's Motion to Dismiss (D. Haw. Aug. 29, 2024). The case addressed whether a property damage exclusion barred coverage over an owner's claim that a condominium association and its property manager failed to obtain adequate insurance before the condominium's property was damaged by the Maui wildfire in August 2023. Great American filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Association and the property manage, Quam Properties Hawaiiana, Inc., in connection with a demand for mediation submitted to the Association and Quam on behalf of one of the owners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

April 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California Contractors State License Board (CSLB”) has issued new application forms. Effective May 1, 2017, the CSLB will only accept forms with a revision date of October 2017 (Pro tip: see bottom of form to verify it indicates a revision date of “10/16” or later). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
In Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation. Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012). Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

September 07, 2020 — Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
The Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.) In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies. Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.” A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot. The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy. The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG. Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status. Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy. In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy. Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered. Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

---

Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

May 25, 2020 — Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
Although construction projects are generally allowed to proceed under most COVID-19 stay at home orders, owners and contractors need to know how to proceed safely on their construction sites. Not only do workers and others on site need to be protected, but implementation of these protocols is also critical to avoid potential liabilities. Last week, the California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety & Health (CAL/OSHA) released guidance regarding safety and health procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at construction sites. A link to the CAL/OSHA Safety and Health Guidance is provided here. While the guidance states that it is not imposing any new legal obligations, it is imperative for businesses to not only be aware of these safety practices, but to incorporate these practices as appropriate on each construction site to protect its employees as well as subcontractors, suppliers and others who may be present on site. Otherwise, owners and contractors face potential exposure to regulatory action, including potential penalties and other liabilities, if they fail to properly incorporate these guidelines into the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) at each construction site. Now is the time to update your current Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) to include recommended protocols for preventing the spread of the Coronavirus. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

---

A Lawyer's Perspective on Current Issues Dominating the Construction Industry

March 28, 2022 — Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Some of the hot topics dominating the construction industry today include the impacts of COVID-19, government testing and vaccine mandates, cyber security, and the evolving role of general counsel. This article provides a summary review of those topics. a. The Economic Impact of COVID-19 for Project Owners Project owners have been placed in a precarious position because courts across the country have almost unanimously ruled that insurance carriers are not liable for COVID-19-related business income losses.1 While project owners have sought alternative ways to mitigate losses resulting from COVID-19, many of these efforts have been negated by the exponential increase in materials costs.2 Thus, it remains unclear what, if any, solutions project owners have at their disposal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. McDonald may be contacted at MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com

---

One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

December 20, 2012 — HEATHER ANDERSON , HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELL
Judge Paul King of the Douglas County District Court recently confirmed that subcontractors in residential construction owe an independent duty, separate and apart from any contractual duties, to act without negligence in the construction of a home in Colorado. See Order, dated September 7, 2010, Sunoo v. Hickory Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 2007CV1866; see also Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1983); A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005). He also verified that the holding in the B.R.W. Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004)[1] case does not prohibit general contractors, such as Hickory Homes, from enforcing a subcontractor’s independent duty to act without negligence in the construction of a home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Ms. Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

---

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

September 01, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a client alert by the firm Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A), “In a recent significant decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that defective work of a subcontractor that causes consequential property damage is both an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage’ under the terms of a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy.” Patrick J. Greene, Jr., and Frank A. Hess of P&A wrote that the Cypress Point Condominium Assoc., Inc. v Adria Towers, LLC, 2016 N.J. Lexis 847 (Aug.4,2016) “decision is important in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions that had relied upon the influential New Jersey case, Weedo v. Stone–E–Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233 (1979), that had determined that such claims involved non-insured ‘business risks.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---