Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims
April 27, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationOn January 27th, Senator Robert Rodriguez introduced SB 20-138 into the Colorado Legislature. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not yet been scheduled for its first hearing in that committee. In short, Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would:
- Extend Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
- Require tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
- Permit statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.
Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims are codified at C.R.S. § 13-80-104. In 1986, the Colorado Legislature set the statute of repose period at 6+2 years. For the last 34 years, Colorado’s statute of repose for owners’ claims against construction professionals has been substantially the same, to wit:
(1) (a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFDescribing it as a “nightmare,” Larry Tolchinsky writes about construction defects at the Willowbrook condominium complex in Florida. Writing on the website of his firm, Sackrin & Tolchinsky, Mr. Tolchinsky gives the history of the Willowbrook condo case, in which condo owners suffered problems with water intrusion and subsequent damage to their units. The builder has agreed to make repairs, though they are still suing owners who put up a website critical of the company.
Mr. Tolchinsky notes that this is not “the usual way things happen in construction defect lawsuits,” and he gives the usual process. Under Florida law, homeowners must first notify those responsible of a “problem and its need for repair.” After this notice, the homeowner “will know within about 6 weeks’ time after sending that formal notice what the contractor’s position is going to be on things.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question
April 28, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIt’s been the fodder of debate of philosophers, academics and the rest of us for ages:
- Do we have free will or are our actions predetermined and the result of preceding events?
- Are human beings fundamentally selfless or self preserving?
- Coca-Cola or Pepsi?
- iOs or android?
And for litigators and their clients, including us construction lawyers, arbitration or litigation? Or, in short, if a project goes sideways, in what forum will you resolve your dispute? It’s an important question the answer to which could mean the difference between winning or losing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions
February 23, 2017 —
Adam P. Handfinger & Meredith N. Reynolds – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Yesterday, February 16, 2017, media outlets reported a nationwide strike by immigrants and
businesses referred to as “A Day Without Immigrants”. The protest, organized largely through
social media, was a response by some to the Trump Administration’s immigration and foreign
trade policies. Participating businesses shut down and immigrants refused to work or spend
money in an eff ort to demonstrate the role of foreign-born workers in the U.S. economy.
While the number of businesses and individuals that participated is not yet known, several
contractors reported labor shortages and construction project delays or temporary shut
downs as a result of the protest.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adam P. Handfinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute
August 14, 2018 —
David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPWhen a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines.
In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin
January 14, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFConstruction preparation of the Tennessee Volunteer’s $30.5 million new humanities building has begun, according to The Tennessean. The 80,000 square-foot facility will become the largest building on the university’s campus, and will feature 23 classrooms, 18 labs, 11 collaborative study areas, 56 offices, 20 adjunct faculty workrooms as well as an outdoor theater and courtyard.
“This is a significant milestone in the history of the college,” President Jerry Faulkner told The Tennessean. “This building has been on our wish list for about 12 years in terms of wanting to have this facility available, so for the first time our humanities division is going to have a home of its own.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims
December 11, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDoes a CGL policy cover attorney’s fees and costs in property damages claims, to the extent there is a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorney’s fees? Naturally, you need to review the policies and this is not a clear-cut issue, but there is law to argue under.
A case I have argued in support of CGL policies providing for coverage for attorney’s fees as a component of property damage claims when there is a contractual or statutory basis is Assurance Co. of America v. Lucas Waterproofing Co., Inc., 581 F.Supp.2d 1201 (S.D.Fla. 2008). In this case, the following applied:
- The policy provided coverage for “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages of… ‘property damage’….
- Property damage was defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.”
- The term damage, in of itself, was not defined in the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
