CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

July 19, 2021 — Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocs
Most construction contracts contain insurance provisions setting forth the insurance required of the contractor or other downstream parties. Some provisions are detailed and lengthy while others are short and sweet, but all are of critical importance and should be fully understood by the contractor before signing the contract. Also, every insured should understand not only what the contract requires but more importantly what the actual policy states, as the policy, not the contract, will govern whether or not there is coverage. It is possible that certificates received will match the contractual requirements, but much of what the policy covers is not reflected on a certificate. Lurking behind the certificate is the policy, which is where the actual coverage lies. The endorsements or exclusions to the policy can make the certificates worthless pieces of paper. There are many exclusions that can cancel coverage for the work a contractor may perform. Height exclusions, residential exclusions, EFIS exclusions and many more, focus on the type of work or materials that the contractor is performing or using. One exclusion, however, focuses on who is insured and that exclusion alone can eliminate all coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com

---

High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
With the diverse speakers and topics planned for this year’s West Coast Casualty Seminar in Anaheim, California on May 15th and 16th, attendance should be high. In 2013, there were approximately 1600 attendees coming from across the country as well as the United Kingdom. The event planners recently added additional blocks of rooms, as the Disneyland Hotel has sold out 90% of the previously allotted room blocks. The planners urge attendees to book their rooms soon. Seminar and panel topics have been announced. Thomas J. Halliwell, Esq. and Barry Vaughan, Esq. will be starting the seminar off with a discussion of “Recent California, Arizona and Nevada Court Decisions that Impact Construction Litigation and Defect Claims.” May 16th will feature a number of interesting break-out sessions including “Working Smarter with Technology” with speakers Brian Kahn, Esq., Paul R. Kiesel, Esq., Hon. Peter Lichtman (ret), Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock (ret), Peter S. Curry and Don MacGregor (Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.). Download Invitation and Register for Seminar... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

July 20, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part. The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

August 11, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Alaska Supreme Court found that in the case of Khalsa v. Chose, Ms. Khalsa? failure to cooperate with the courts has obligated them to dismiss her claims against Mr. Chose. Ms. Khalsa bought a home kit from Mandala Custom Homes of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Chose, one of the owners of Mandala was paid by Ms. Khalsa to supervise assembly in Fairbanks. After construction, the roof developed leaks. Ms. Khalsa stated that when climbing a ladder to inspect a skylight leak, she fell and injured herself.



During the subsequent suit, Khalsa proved uncooperative. She skipped a pretrial conference. She attended a hearing that set discovery deadlines but then did not comply with discovery, including her failure to provide medical records documenting her injuries. She eventually said that she would only be able to travel from Arizona to Alaska if the defendants paid for her and her caretaker?s expenses.



When finally deposed, Khalsa terminated the deposition after five minutes, alleging the deposition was “intentionally designed to cause [her] to endure further emotional distress, due to the psychological trauma . . . that was caused or contributed to by the defendants.”



Eventually, the lower court sanctioned her twice. In July, 2008, the court concluded that her failure to provide medical records required dismissal of her injury lawsuit. In October of that year, the court dismissed all remaining claims due to her “pattern of excuses and long delays in providing information for discovery culminating in her refusal to participate in her deposition by the defendants.” Further, Khalsa has argued that the trial court displayed “prejudice and bias toward the pro se plaintiff.”



The Alaska Supreme Court rejected all of Ms. Khalsa?s claims, dismissing her case. They did, however, note that she has thirty days to file an appeal.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Do Hurricane-Prone Coastal States Need to Update their Building Codes?

April 15, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Property Casualty 360 reported that “a number of coastal states took no action to improve their building code systems since 2012, and a few have weaker systems in place, according to the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS).” The IBHS released their “Rating the States” report that published the results of their study of “the 18 most hurricane-prone states located along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast on their building regulations.” States can receive up to 100 points, with a higher score reflecting better state building requirements. Delaware scored lowest with a mere 17 points—the same score it received in 2012. Virginia, the highest scored state, earned 95 points. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A West Virginia couple has sued the manufacturer of their home for construction defects and damage. Darrell and Teri Pearson claim that the home they purchased from Giles Industries was defective. They further claim that Kitchen’s Construction failed to set the home up properly and that the firm did not repair damaged sections of home. The suit also names the firm that sold the home and others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies

November 01, 2021 — Edward M. Koch & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams
Insurance policies covering first-party property damage often require insureds to notify insurers of a loss “as soon as practicable.” Where an insured may or may not have given notice “as soon as practicable,” the issue arises as to who should determine whether the insured complied with this requirement: the judge or the jury? On October 6, 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia addressed this issue in Vintage Hospitality Group LLC v. National Trust Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-90-CDL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192651 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2021). In Vintage Hospitality, a July 2018 hailstorm damaged the roof of a hotel owned by the policyholder. The policyholder did not discover leaks from the hotel roof until two months later, in September 2018. The policyholder, not realizing that the hailstorm had caused the leaks, unsuccessfully attempted to repair the leaks. Eventually, in February 2020—19 months after the hailstorm and 17 months after the policyholder discovered the leaks—the policyholder hired a construction company to evaluate the roof. It was not until then that the policyholder learned that the hotel had sustained hail damage from the July 2018 storm. The policyholder notified its July 2018 first-party property damage insurer a few days later. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Sinking Floor Does Not Meet Strict Definition of Collapse

August 17, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the sinking of the insured's floor caused by termites and rot deterioration did not meet the homeowners policy's definition of collapse. Stewart v. Metro. Lloyds Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111527 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2020). Beatrice Stewart, the homeowner, heard a loud bang one night as she lay in bed. The next day, she found that the floor near her bathroom and hallway had sunk and the house was sitting lower. She admitted the house never completely fell down. Upon investigation, Lloyds found that rot in the floor joists and subfloor decking were caused by a combination of termite damage and exposure to moisture. Lloyds denied the claim. Stewart sued. Lloyds argued the policy required an "entire collapse" of the building or any part of a building, which did not occur here. The policy defined "collapse" as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building." The record did not show that any part of Stewart's floor caved in. 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

---