Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous
April 22, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogInscribed over the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court are the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” It’s a reminder that judicial decisions should be just. That doesn’t necessarily mean fair.
In Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Case No. 17-16510 (January 28, 2019), the 9th Circuit overturned an arbitration decision in favor of a local Afghani subcontractor seeking termination costs after it was terminated for convenience by a U.S.-based general contractor. This, despite the arbitrator’s finding that the subcontract was “clearly drafted to give every advantage to” the general contractor, that the local Afghani subcontractor’s “experience with government contracting [was] not nearly as extensive as that of” the general contractor, and “that the normal business practices and customs of subcontractors in Afghanistan were more ‘primitive’ than those of U.S. subcontractors experienced with U.S. Government work.”
Aspic Engineering and Construction
Local Afghani subcontractor Aspic Engineering and Construction Company was awarded two subcontracts by ECC Centcom Constructors the general contractor on two projects in Afghanistan overseen by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The first subcontract involved construction of various buildings in the Badghis province of Afghanistan . The second subcontract involved the construction various buildings Sheberghan province of Afghanistan . Both subcontracts included clauses from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which were incorporated by reference, and included flow-down provisions obligating Aspic to ECC in the same manner that ECC was obligated to the U.S. government.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel RosenMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021
November 08, 2021 —
Adriana A. Perez & Andrea DeField - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWe are pleased to announce that Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance coverage partner
Lorelie S. Masters is one of only eight attorneys throughout the nation shortlisted for the Best in Insurance & Reinsurance category for the
Women in Business Law Awards 2021. The award honors “the outstanding achievements of women in over thirty different practice areas in business law from across Americas. These are individuals who stand out as leaders amongst their peers and who have been instrumental to innovative approaches in their field.”
A nationally recognized insurance coverage litigator, Ms. Masters has handled and tried cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country and in arbitrations in the United States and abroad. At issue in these cases, typically, have been millions of dollars of insurance coverage for product and environmental liability, like silicone gel breast implant and asbestos claims. She regularly advises clients on a wide range of liability coverages, including insurance for environmental, cyber, directors and officers, property damage, and other liabilities and loss. Most recently, she has advised clients in a variety of industries on COVID-19 losses under a wide variety of first-party property, business-interruption policies and “package policies,” and obtained multi-million dollar settlements under D&O, Side-A Only D&O and E&O policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only
April 05, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's determination that there was no coverage under the builder's risk policy. Gerald H. Phipps, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2764 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017).
GH Phipps Construction Company (GHP) was hired to renovate and expand the University of Denver's library. GHP was completing installation of a new roof on the library when water from melting snow leaked into the building. The water damaged existing drywall and insulation in the stairwells and elevator shafts that GHP planned to preserve and update. Before the snow melt mishap, GHP had completed some preliminary work in the damaged areas to designate locations for future installation of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems. But GHP had not yet installed any new materials, updated any lighting fixtures, or patched and painted any existing drywall in the damaged areas.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy
April 01, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiResponding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court determined that BP was not an additional insured under Transocean's liability policy and had no coverage under the policy for the deaths caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. In re Horizon, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 141 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015). We have previously posted on this case in the federal courts here and here.
Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit operating in the Gulf of Mexico pursuant to a contract with BP. After an explosion in April 2010, the rig caught fire, killing eleven crew members. Both Transocean and BP sought coverage under Transocean's primary and excess policies. Although they did not dispute that BP was an additional insured, Transocean and its insurers argued that BP was not entitled to coverage for pollution-related liabilities arising from subsurface oil releases in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.
October 10, 2013 —
David M. McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCThe Colorado Pool case has been featured in two past blog entries, including: “An Arapahoe County District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retrospectively,” which discussed the case at the trial court level, and “Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy,” which discussed the case at the Court of Appeals level. In both instances, the courts held that retroactively applying C.R.S. C.R.S. § 13-20-808 to policies in effect prior to the date of the statute’s enactment would be impermissibly retrospective because it would change the coverage under the policy for which the parties had originally bargained.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLainDavid M. McLain can be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Claim for Vandalism Loss Survives Motion to Dismiss
October 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court ruled that the insured's claim for vandalism of his house by a renter and for bad faith survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Wehrenberg v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103758 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2015).
The insured's home was insured by a homeowner's policy issued by Metropolitan. The insured rented his home to Alphonso Hyman in October 2011. In lieu of rent, Hyman was to pay the mortgage company the equivalent of his rent each month.
In early 2012, Hyman stopped making the monthly rent/mortgage payments. The insured went to the home and found the locks had been changed. Looking in the windows, he saw the interior had been gutted. When the insured reached Hyman, Hyman said he was a contractor and was fixing the structural problems and would put the house back together. He also promised to make up late payments to the mortgage company. The insured did not report what he found to Metropolitan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”
The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.
As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.
Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.
The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”
The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.
Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision
January 25, 2021 —
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Andrews KurthNew Jersey’s highest court heard arguments Monday in the appeal of a ruling that the New Jersey Transit Corp.’s (“NJ Transit”) insurers are required to insure $400 million of water damage loss caused by Hurricane Sandy.
The matter stems from an insurance claim NJ Transit made after the super storm rocked the East Coast in 2012. NJ Transit claimed over $400 million in losses as a result of damage to its tracks, bridges, tunnels and power stations. In response, its tower of property insurers took the position that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to limit NJ Transit’s recovery under its insurance tower, not the policy’s $400 million overall limits.NJ Transit filed a coverage action in state court. The trial court granted summary judgment to NJ Transit, holding that NJ Transit was entitled to full coverage of $400 million under the tower’s named windstorm coverage. The insurers appealed, again arguing that the flood sublimit applied to the claim.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
