Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”
March 01, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe Miller Act applies to the “construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the Federal Government.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3131.
A recent opinion out of the Northern District of Oklahoma sheds light on what the Miller Act means regarding its application to any public work of the Federal Government. See U.S. v. Bronze Oak, LLC, 2017 WL 190099 (N.D.Ok. 2017). If the project is not a public works project of the Federal Government, the Miller Act does not apply.
In this case, the Department of Transportation entered into an agreement with the Cherokee Nation where the Department would provide lump sum funding and the Nation would use the money to fund transportation projects. Based on the federal funding, the Nation issued a bid for a transportation project in Mayes County, Oklahoma and the project was awarded to a prime contractor. The prime contractor provided a payment bond that identified the United States as the obligee (as a Miller Act payment is required to do) and stated that it was issued per the Miller Act. Thereafter, the Nation and Mayes County, Oklahoma entered into a Memorandum of Understanding where the County would assume responsibility for the construction and maintenance of the project and the Nation would pay the County an agreed amount upon the completion of the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case
October 19, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied the brokers' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal from claims that they inadequately advised the insured of the law regarding construction defects in Hawaii. Am Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148571.
Safeway sued Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB) and others for construction defects in a newly constructed store. The underlying complaint alleged products liability claims against HNB as the distributor of the "VersaFlex Coating System." HSB had represented that the coating system was adequate for its intended use. The underlying complaint alleged failure of the VersaFlex Coating System in waterproofing the roof deck of the store. After the store opened, water leaks from the roof deck appeared. Safeway alleged they were caused by the cracks and failures in the waterproof membrane in the roof deck.
HNB notified its insurers of the claims. The insurers defended HNB during the litigation subject to reservation of rights letters.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?
June 01, 2020 —
Jeffrey Dennis & Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer DillionCyber attackers all know that the majority of organizations are currently working from home due to the ongoing COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic. And, as would be expected, social engineering scams are on the rise. Nonetheless, there may be limitations in your cyber liability insurance policy for these types of claims. It is advisable to take the initiative to review such insurance policies in detail for coverage considerations prior to the occurrence of any cyber incident. And, of course, protect your business from attacks by engaging in precautious cyber safety efforts.
What Is Social Engineering?
Social engineering refers to various means to manipulate individuals in the online environment so that they divulge sensitive, personal information, such as banking information, which may include account numbers and passwords. This can also take the form of receiving a request to transfer funds to what the victim believes is another employee, trusted financial information or other party with whom the person has a business relationship with. Unfortunately, however, those funds ultimately are received by the engineer of the cyber attack.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion and
Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com
Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Top Developments March 2024
April 22, 2024 —
Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterCLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024)
Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue.
POLLUTION EXCLUSION
Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024)
A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 5: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery
July 25, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogInsurance policies provide different levels of insurance coverage and even if the amount purchased was adequate at one time, developments over time (e.g., inflation, upgrades, regulatory changes and surge pricing) may leave the policyholder underinsured. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we emphasize the need for policyholders to take a close look at the policy’s terms to select the right type and amount of coverage for a potential loss.
Various types of coverage are available and there has been extensive litigation concerning the amount of coverage provided by one policy form or another. For example, the policyholder may have purchased market value coverage (the value of the house at the time of the wildfire), replacement coverage subject to a policy limits cap, guaranteed replacement cost coverage, or some variation on the theme. While the property may be properly valued when the insurance is purchased, it may become undervalued at the time of loss due to factors like inflation or home improvements that were not disclosed to the insurer. And, however generous the limits may be when the policy is procured, as one court discussed, it may be insufficient when “surge pricing” occurs after a wildfire.
[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“Source of Duty,” Tort, and Contract, Oh My!
September 06, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the general rule in Virginia that
tort and contract do not mix. I have also discussed a
few narrow exceptions. A Virginia Supreme Court case from October of 2019 lays out both sides of this issue in one glorious opinion.
In
Tingler v. Graystone Homes, Inc., a summary of the facts and lawsuit(s) are as follows: Water leaks developed after the home was built. Graystone’s post-construction efforts to repair the leaks and remediate mold were unsuccessful. The Tinglers and their children abandoned the home after developing mold-related medical problems. The Tinglers and their children sued Graystone in tort for personal injury, property damage, and economic loss. In other litigation that will not be discussed in this post, but that is described in the opinion linked above, Belle Meade sued Graystone in contract for property damage and economic losses. George and Crystal Tingler filed a separate complaint alleging the same contract claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage
August 27, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the insurer's argument that coverage was barred for the insured's contractual assumption of liability of another. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am v. Peaker Serv., Inc., 2014 WL 3605680 (Mich. Ct. App. July 22, 2014).
The contractor was hired to install an "electronic over-speed system" at the University of Michigan. The hope was that the new system would prevent the steam turbines at the central power plant from turning too quickly. The parties' contract provided,
“Section 15.18. Supplier Damage to University Property. Without regard to any other section of the Agreement, Supplier shall be responsible for the costs to return to ‘as was’ condition from any damage caused to the building, grounds, or other equipment and furnishings caused in whole or part by Supplier Personnel while performing activities arising under this Agreement.”
The contractor improperly calibrated the system, causing one of the university's turbines to operate at twice the safe operational speed, causing significant damage to the generator equipment. The university sued the contractor for more than $3 million in damages. Travelers defended, but filed a declaratory judgment action, contending that coverage did not exist because the "contractual liability" exclusion applied. Section 15.18 of the contract purportedly constituted an "assumption" of the insured's own liability, and was therefore not covered under the CGL policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Important Insurance Alert for Out-of-State Contractors Assisting in Florida Recovery Efforts!
November 01, 2022 —
Richard W. Brown & Stephanie A. Giagnorio - Saxe Doernberger & VitaSignificant portions of Florida suffered extensive damage from Hurricane Ian. Many out-of-state contractors have sent their workers to Florida to help with the cleanup and rebuilding process.
SDV is sending out this important notice for all out-of-state contractors to contact their workers’ compensation brokers and insurers to ensure their out-of-state workers’ compensation policy will cover workers in Florida. The state of Florida does not recognize the “All States Endorsement” on workers’ compensation policies, and in some instances could potentially result in out-of-state contractors being without coverage in the State of Florida.
As per the
Florida Division of Workers’ Compensation: “Out of State Employers must notify their insurance carrier that they are working in Florida. If there is no insurance, the out-of-state employer is required to obtain a Florida Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy with a
Florida approved insurance carrier which meets the requirements of Florida law and the Florida Insurance Code. This means that ‘Florida’ must be specifically listed in Section 3A of the policy (on the Information Page).”
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Stephanie A. Giagnorio, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Giagnorio may be contacted at SGiagnorio@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
