The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"
September 30, 2019 —
Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn honor of Shark Week, that annual television-event where we eagerly flip on the Discovery Channel to get our fix of these magnificent (and terrifying!) creatures, I was inspired to write about the “predatory” practices we’ve encountered recently in our construction insurance practice. The more sophisticated the business and risk management department is, the more likely they have a sophisticated insurer writing their coverage. Although peaceful coexistence is possible, that doesn’t mean that insurers won’t use every advantage available to them – compared to even large corporate insureds, insurance companies are the apex predators of the insurance industry.
In order to safeguard policyholders’ interests, most states have developed a body of law (some statutory, some based on judicial decisions) requiring insurers to act in good faith when dealing with their insureds. This is typically embodied as a requirement that the insurer act “fairly and reasonably” in processing, investigating, and handling claims. If the insurer does not meet this standard, insureds may be entitled to damages above and beyond that which they could otherwise recover for breach of contract.
Proving that an insurer acted in “bad faith,” however, can be like swimming against the riptide. Most states hold that bad faith requires more than just a difference of opinion between insured and insurer over the available coverage – the policyholder must show that the insurer acted “wantonly” or “maliciously,” or, in less stringent jurisdictions, that the insurer was “unreasonable.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Guertin may be contacted at
tag@sdvlaw.com
New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series
February 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to readMedia, The Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York (LRANY) has released “‘Victims of the Scaffold Law’ video series” that highlights “the impact of New York's ‘Scaffold Law’ on small businesses, taxpayers, and, specifically New York's Minority and Woman Owned Business Enterprises.”
The New York Scaffold Law “imposes total liability on contractors and property owners in lawsuits for gravity-related construction accidents, regardless of any contributing negligence by the worker,” reports readMedia. Furthermore, the law “is responsible for over half of the largest settlements in the state and dramatically increases the cost of liability insurance and construction in New York.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?
November 05, 2014 —
Craig Martin - Construction Contractor AdvisorWhether a contractor will be liable to a second purchaser, even though the contractor never contracted with the second purchaser, varies state to state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Conway v. The Cutler Group, is the latest court to rule that a subsequent purchaser lacks privity and cannot pursue an action against the builder.
In that case, the Conways purchased a home from the original owner. After living in the home for about two years, the Conways discovered water leaking around the windows. The Conways sued the builder, alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
The builder defended the claim, asserting that it had not contracted with the Conways and thus had not provided any warranties to the Conways. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim. The first level of appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the warranty of habitability was intended to level the playing field between the builder and purchaser of a home and it should be extended to subsequent purchasers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed and refused to extend any warranties to subsequent purchasers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
#10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFCraig Martin of
Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP on his
Construction Contractor Advisor blog used the Carithers case to demonstrate how “[w]hen you are involved in construction litigation, you have battles on several fronts, including those against subcontractors, owners, insurers and the court. Shoring up your defenses on each of these fronts is imperative, or you may lose the battle or, worse yet, the war.” Martin discusses the various “battle fronts” including the “Claim Against Contractor,” “Where Are You Litigating,” “Claim Against Insurance Company,” and “Damages.”
Read the full story...
In the article, “Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part,” attorney
Tred R. Eyerly also covered the Carithers case. Eyerly explained, “Determining whether there was coverage for the damages awarded required the court to decide which trigger applied. Examining the policy language, the court determined that property damage occurred when the damage happened, not when the damage was discovered or discoverable. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the injury in fact trigger.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA
May 16, 2022 —
Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines.
Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground.
In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Sheldon may be contacted at
cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com
Industrialized Construction News 7/2022
August 15, 2022 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe
AEC Business newsletter’s Industrialized Construction edition in July featured the following news stories:
The Pros and Cons of Offsite Construction – A French Research Study
The study is titled The current use of industrialized construction techniques in France: Benefits, limits and future expectations. The authors are Emna Attouri, Zoubeir Lafhaj, Laure Ducoulombierb and Bruno Linéatte.
Read more
Rise of the machines? For Construction, Not Yet
Matthew Thibault’s article examines the opportunities and challenges of construction robotics. Robots can improve safety and productivity, but the ROI is still unclear to many contractors.
Read more Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
A Court-Side Seat: Butterflies, Salt Marshes and Methane All Around
November 16, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOur latest summary of some recent developments in the courts and the federal agencies includes a unique case involving salt marshes adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
THE FEDERAL COURTS
A Wolf Among the Butterflies
On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of North American Butterfly Association v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The National Butterfly Center is a 100-acre wildlife sanctuary located in Texas along the border between the United States and Mexico, and in 2017, the DHS exerted control over a segment of the sanctuary to construct facilities to impede unauthorized entry into the United States. It was alleged that the government failed to provide advance notice to the sanctuary before it entered the sanctuary to build its facilities. The Association filed a lawsuit to halt these actions for several reasons, including constitutional claims and two federal environmental laws (NEPA and the Endangered Species Act), but the lower court dismissed the lawsuit because of the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). That law forecloses the applicability of these laws if the Secretary of DHS issues appropriate declaration. On appeal, the DC Circuit held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed. The plaintiffs had standing to file this lawsuit, but the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the IIRIRA, when invoked, required that the statutory claims be dismissed as well as a constitutional Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. However, the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that the government’s actions violated their right to procedural due process must be reviewed. The Center was given no notice of the government’s claims and no opportunity to be heard before these actions were taken. The dissenting judge argued that the court was being asked to review a non-final decision, which it should not do.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun
April 04, 2022 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion.
With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
