No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays
March 01, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Montana law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for a subcontractor who was sued by the contractor for breach of the subcontract. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Ed Boland Constr., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6654 (D. Mont. Jan 18, 2017).
Northbank was the general contractor on a project to repair a bridge for the Federal Highway Administration (FHA). Ed Boland Construction, Inc. (EBC) was the subcontractor to perform drilling and pile installation. After beginning its work, EBC ran into difficulties with unforeseen conditions at the work site. The FHA informed Northbank that it had concerns over EBC's ability to complete the work. The FHA alleged that EBC had brought equipment to the work site that differed from the equipment it had represented would be used.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy
August 24, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Federal District Court denied two plaintiffs' claims for breach of the policy and for bad faith because they were not insureds under the policy. Tu v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115200 (N.D. Calif. July 24, 2017).
Dongbu, a Hawaii insurance company, issued a two-year policy to Plaintiff Ken Tu for his business. He was the only named insured under the policy.
The waste system at Plaintiffs' restaurant failed, causing fumes to impact neighboring tenants and waste to contaminate the underlying soil. Plaintiffs were forced to close the restaurant. A claim was tendered for damage and repair, loss of business income, and other insured losses. Dongbu denied coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans
May 13, 2024 —
Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute ResolverIn the April 4, 2024 edition of Division 1’s Toolbox Talk Series,
Julian Ackert and
Steve Swart presented on how to prepare for and structure Rule 26(f) conferences to be more effective. While Swart and Ackert focused on the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) regarding the requisite conference of the parties prior to a scheduling conference or scheduling order, it is worth noting that many states have substantially similar requirements.
Rule 26(f) requires the parties to (i) discuss the nature and basis of their claims or defense; (ii) make or arrange for mandatory disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1); (iii) discuss issues about preserving discoverable information (including Electronically Stored Information – “ESI”); and (iv) develop a proposed discovery plan. Swart and Ackert’s presentation focused on the preservation of ESI and the proposed discovery plan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’ConnorMr. Mackin may be contacted at
dmackin@cozen.com
Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings
November 27, 2023 —
Payne & Fears LLPPayne & Fears LLP has been recognized by Best Lawyers 2024 “Best Law Firms” list. Firms included in the 2024 edition of Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers.
Payne & Fears LLP has been ranked in the following practice areas:
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Orange County
- Commercial Litigation
- Employment Law – Management
- Insurance Law
- Labor Law – Management
- Litigation – Labor & Employment
- Litigation – Real Estate
- Metropolitan Tier 3
- Orange County
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar
May 03, 2018 —
Don MacGregor - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Twenty-five years ago. 1993. On January 23rd, Bill Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd President of the United States. The average cost of a gallon of gasoline was $1.16, a movie ticket cost $4.00, and the average cost of a new home was $113,200.00.
1993 also marked the first of what would be a quarter century of annual seminars hosted by West Coast Casualty Service, and provided to the combined professionals within the construction defect community. As the seminar has grown both in attendance and prominence within this community under the watchful stewardship of David and Coral Stern, much has changed both with regard to the content of the seminar and the climate within which it was presented. A quick look at the topics addressed over the past 25 years of the Construction Defect Seminar provides one with a veritable history of construction defect litigation and insurance coverage trends across the United States and beyond.
While the first seminar was hosted in 1993, my first attendance didn’t occur until 1999, and the first time I was honored to be a panelist would have to wait until 2007. In the subsequent years, I’ve had the opportunity to sit on panels an additional three times, and each one I gained rare and valuable insights into the construction defect community, its willingness to challenge itself, and the amazing professionals we all have the distinct pleasure of working with every day (and whom we sometimes take too much for granted).
In the mid to late 90’s, topics at the seminar included such subjects as the Montrose Chemical Corp v. Superior Court decision (Montrose) regarding a carrier’s duty to defend and the subsequent Stonewall Insurance case that examined the duty to indemnify in the context of construction defect claims. The California Calderon Act of 1997, laying out the roadmap for HOA’s filing construction defect lawsuits was also a topic of discussion and debate within the West Coast “arena.”
The new millennium saw the landmark Aas v. William Lyon decision, which disallowed negligence claims for construction defects in the absence of actual resultant damage. This was followed by Presley Homes v. American States Insurance wherein the court ruled that a duty to defend applies where there is mere potential for coverage and the duty to defend applies to the entire action. Each of these bellwether decisions was addressed contemporaneously by panels at the West Coast seminar, contemporaneously bringing additional dialog to the CD community, from within the community.
2002 brought what has become the defining legislation in California regarding construction defect litigation and a builder’s right to repair. Senate Bill 800 (SB800), and its subsequent codification as Title 7, Part 2 of Division 2 of the California Civil Code, Sections 895 through 945.5 would become the defining framework for similar legislation across the United States. During the course of its drafting, movement through the legislature, and final adoption in January of 1993, many of the questions raised and debated in committees in Sacramento, had already been and were continuing to be addressed by panelists at the West Coast Seminar. How does SB800 work with Calderon? How does it affect the prior Aas decision? What now constitutes a defect, and what are timeframes established within the complex pre-litigation process? Open the pages of the 2002 – 2004 seminar invitations and you’ll see panels comprised of the finest members of the insurance law and coverage communities addressing those very questions (and more)!
As the first decade of the new century drew to a close, a brief review of the WCC invitations from that period suggests a trend towards programmatic analyses of key themes selected for the seminar. In 2008, my second opportunity as a guest speaker, topics included a review of the state of construction defect litigation in a post-SB 800 environment. Panelists offered retrospective insight into the state of right to repair statutes in multiple states, while others offered a glimpse at where the industry might be headed, as similar legislation was enacted across the country. As always, pertinent court decisions bearing on construction defect, both in California, and elsewhere were given unique perspective and additional clarity by multiple panels of gifted speakers. In 2009, claims and coverage were examined from multiple unique perspectives, including that of plaintiff, the policyholder, and the insurer. Wrap policies and the gaps in due to self-insured retention obligations were examined.
As we rapidly approach the end of the second decade of the 21st Century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar continues to lead the construction defect community as the premier source for information and peer dialog on all matters relating to construction law, coverage, and emerging trends. In 2017, the Seminar tackled such broad subjects as the role of women in the construction industry, claims management, and risk management, challenges raised by wrap versus non-wrap litigation, and the emergent trend of apartment to condo conversions (and the attendant coverage challenges).
This month, beginning on May 16th at the Disneyland Resort, in Anaheim California, America’s largest Construction Defect event kicks off its 25th Anniversary celebration. As has been every year since 1993, the seminar invitation promises insurance, legal, and industry professionals an exciting and informative array of salient and timely panel topics, as well as a stellar faculty of gifted panelists. If this year’s seminar is anything like the past 25 years, this edition of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar will not only be informative and educational, but also a promise for another 25 years of peerless service to the construction defect community.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2023 Executive Insights From Leaders in Construction Law
June 12, 2023 —
Construction ExecutiveIf a major project is interrupted or canceled, are there any laws that provide protection for unpaid contractors that have performed work?
Angela Richie
Partner, Co-Chair, Construction Practice Group
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
With the current volatility and uncertainty in the economy, project interruptions and cancellations are on the rise; hence, you need to take steps now to make sure you have a method to get paid for the work you have performed.
For private projects, make sure you have followed the pre-lien notification requirements for the state in which the project is located before you start work, if they are required. Then, be sure to follow the lien notice and lien filing requirements for the state. Each state is different, so you want to be ready with the appropriate documentation in advance of the project interruption or cancellation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts
March 27, 2019 —
Henry Bangert - Colorado Construction LitigationThe purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals.
Introduction and Background
Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement.
Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself
May 12, 2016 —
Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not.
Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence.
Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.”
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
