New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder
May 16, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine, Kevin V. Small & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogNL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017
November 03, 2016 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams received one National Tier 1 ranking and four Metropolitan Tier 1 rankings in U.S. News - Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms" for 2017. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience.
National Tier 1
Insurance Law
Metropolitan Tier 1
Boston
Insurance Law
Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Philadelphia
Real Estate Law
Tax Law
Metropolitan Tier 2
Boston
Mergers and Acquisitions Law
Philadelphia
Construction Law
Insurance Law
Tax and Estates Law
Metropolitan Tier 3
Boston
Employment Law - Management
Labor Law - Management
Litigation - Labor and Employment
Philadelphia
Patent Law
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party
November 18, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe plaintiff insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that defendant insurer was obligated to defend a non-party as an additional insured was granted. Am Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2019 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 4145 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2019).
Quality Building Construction, LLC was the contractor hired to work on exterior facade of a building owned by Central Park West Corporation. The underlying complaint alleged that Quality caused plastic spacers and pedestals used for the penthouse terrace to fall down the roof drain riser. A clog and rainwater backup resulted in water damage to apartment 8A. The resulting damage was allegedly due to the clogged roof drain riser.
Quality subcontracted the work to Mega State, Inc. The subcontract required Mega to indemnify and hold Quality harmless against claims in connection with Mega's work, as well as name Quality as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory bases under Mega's CGL policy. Burlington issued a policy to Mega naming Quality as an additional insured. American Empire issued a CGL policy to Quality.
Quality was sued in the underlying action, but Mega was not. American Empire tendered a demand for coverage to Mega and Burlington, relying on the agreement between Quality and Mega. Burlington responded that Mega was not liable for the alleged damages. American Empire sued Burlington. Subsequently, Burlington accepted the tender to defend Quality in the underlying action, and reserved rights as to whether Burlington's policy was primary and on the question of indemnification. American Empire agreed to withdraw its suit if Burlington would modify its reservation of rights. Burlington refused.
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
Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHome sales and prices are up in Nashville, Tennessee, but it isn’t the locals who are responsible. “People are moving from Florida, California, Texas, Arizona. People come from New York and New Jersey and can’t believe the home values and low taxes,” said Margaret Dixon, a Tennessee realtor. And they’re moving to areas that the locals haven’t embraced. They “don’t have imaginary boundaries in their heads.”
As a result, home sales are up 22% in the third quarter with a 9% rise in prices, as compared to the same quarter last year in Davidson County, where Nashville is located. In adjacent Williamson County, sales were up even more, with a 31% increase in volume and a 12% increase in price. Smyrna, home of Nissan’s LEAF electric car, saw a 25.5% increase in sales volume.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Remodel Leads to Construction Defect Lawsuit
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Sacramento, California law firm Anderson Shoech has announced that it will be filing a construction defect lawsuit concerning a single-family home in Sonora, California. The remodel is alleged to have lead to roof leaks and mold growth. Anderson Schoech will have the home inspected by a general contractor who will be retained as an expert witness.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”
Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.
Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”
After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.
Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.
Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
July 11, 2018 —
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at
jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com
