Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers
January 08, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine, Sergio F. Oehninger, & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Second Circuit recently confirmed in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co. that a warranty letter accompanying the policyholder’s insurance application barred coverage for a lengthy SEC investigation, which ripened into a “Claim” prior to the policy’s inception date. The opinion left intact the lower court’s finding that the SEC subpoena constituted a “demand for non-monetary relief” and thus qualified as a “Claim” under the directors and officers (D&O) insurance policy.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
Michael S. Levine,
Sergio F. Oehninger and
Joshua S. Paster
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal
January 07, 2015 —
Jerrold P. Anders and Michael W. Jervis - White and Williams LLPIn Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the gist of the action doctrine that distinguishes between tort and contract claims. In doing this, the Court also ruled that a Certificate of Merit in a professional liability claim is necessary only if the plaintiff is in a direct client relationship with the licensed professional. This clarification of the Certificate of Merit requirement may limit the ability of architects and engineers to obtain an early dismissal in lawsuits.
Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co. involves a common scenario. The Brunos filed a claim with their homeowners’ insurer after discovering mold in their home during remodeling. The policy included an endorsement providing coverage for mold. As part of the claim adjustment, Erie hired an engineer to inspect the mold and to provide an opinion on its severity to determine the extent of remediation required. The engineer hired by Erie reported to Mr. Bruno that the mold was harmless, that concern over health problems due to mold was merely a “media frenzy,” and that the Brunos should continue with their renovations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and
Michael W. Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January
February 26, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder magazine reported, “Sales of new single-family houses in January 2015 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 481,000, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is 0.2% (±22.2%)* below the revised December rate of 482,000, but is 5.3% (±22.1%)* above the January 2014 estimate of 457,000.”
According to Metrostudy (as reported by Builder), builders seem to be getting ready for increased production this year: “An excellent leading indicator for housing starts is the number of lots reaching development (ready for the builder to start building). Our in-field research shows that lot development has doubled in the last two to three years in many markets.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018
December 11, 2018 —
Alejandro G. Ruiz & Eric C. Sohlgren - Payne & FearsThis month’s key employment law cases address the test for independent contractor status, the legality of an incentive compensation system, and personal liability for wage and hour violations.
Garcia v. Border Transp. Group, LLC, Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2018
Summary: Defendants must satisfy Dynamex ABC test to establish independent contractor status as defense to wage order claims, but Borello multifactor test applies to non-wage-order claims.
Facts: Plaintiff leased a taxicab license and taxicab from defendants. Plaintiff brought several employment claims against defendants, including claims for whistleblower wrongful termination, unpaid wages, minimum wages, meal and rest break penalties, wage statement penalties, civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act (“PAGA”), waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims on the ground that plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee. Relying on the factors described in Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341, 256 Cal. Rptr. 543 (1989), defendant presented evidence that plaintiff set his own hours, used the cab for personal business, kept collected fares, used a radio dispatch service, entered into sublease agreements, held other jobs, and advertised services in his own name.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. While plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2018), establishing a new test for independent contractor status under the definition of employment found in the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alejandro G. Ruiz, Payne & Fears and
Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears
Mr. Ruiz may be contacted at agr@paynefears.com
Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy
June 07, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhen sued for construction defects caused by the subcontractor, the general contractor was granted summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the subcontractor's policy. Meritage Homes of Ga. v. Grange Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84591 (N.D. Ga. March 23, 2021).
Meritage built a home for the owners. Easterwood Excavating, Inc. was the subcontractor for excavation and grading work. Meritage was named an additional insured under Easterwood's policy with Grange.
After construction was completed, the owners were experiencing severe flooding after rain storms purportedly due to defects in the grading, site preparation and excavation. The owners filed an arbitration against Meritage for damages. The owners alleged that Meritage improperly excavated and graded their lot, causing water to collect and pool in their yard. Meritage denied all liability and looked to Easterwood and Grange for defense and indemnification. Grange denied coverage, contending there was no occurrence which resulted in property damage. The arbitrator found that the folding of water was caused by Meritage's improper grading of the lot. A Final Award in the amount of $129,530.93 was issued against Meritage.
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
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
Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage
January 15, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe policy's anti-concurrent causation clause preserved the possibility of coverage when the insurer's motion for summary judgment to disclaim its indemnity obligation for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy was overturned by the Second Circuit. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29821 (Oct. 23, 2018 2nd Cir. )
In 2012, Madelaine Chocolate suffered significant damage to its business due to storm surges created by Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate had an "all-risk" policy issued by Great Northern. Madelaine Chocolate filed a claim for property damage of approximately $40 million and business income loss and extra operation expenses of $13.5 million. Great Northern denied most of the claim, reasoning that the storm surge damage was excluded under the policy.
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
When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One
October 14, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAccording to the California Judicial Council you have about a one in three chance your case will go to trial. In 2018, of the 210,028 unlimited civil cases that were filed (i.e., cases with an amount at issue of more than $25,000) only 33 percent made it all the way to trial. The odds are even less if you’re involved in a limited civil case (i.e., cases with an amount at issue of less than $25,000) where only 15 percent make it all the way to trial.
The reason: Lawyers are expensive. The other reason: Trials are risky. As well prepared as your counsel may be for trial, when it comes to trials, like boxes of chocolates, “Ya never know what you’re gonna get.” And sometimes you really, really don’t know what you’re going to get.
I had a client involved in a trial once. The defendant’s representative at trial was a well-to-do young man and heir to a hotel fortune. He was young, athletic and had a confident, carefree way about himself that reminded me of “Dickie” Greenleaf from the Talented Mr. Ripley. And I wasn’t the only one who noticed.
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
