An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be
December 20, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer.
With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Fall 2024 Legislative Update:
October 28, 2024 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCReview of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13
While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below.
A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024
Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units.
This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages
March 29, 2017 —
Brooke E. Beebe, Esq. - Florida Construction Law NewsThe situation is one all too familiar to construction defect litigants. A homeowner contracts with a roofing contractor to install a new roof with a life expectancy of ten years.[1] After only five years, the homeowner brings a claim for construction defects in the roof alleging that the roof requires complete replacement due to water intrusion. The homeowner seeks damages for the full replacement cost of the roof. However, under a “useful life” theory, the homeowner would not be entitled to damages for the full amount of the replacement cost. Instead, the homeowner would be entitled to one-half of the cost of the replacement roof, taking into account the fact that he or she had been deprived of only five, rather than ten, years of use. “Useful life” is best understood as the expected length of time that a newly built construction element can be reasonably anticipated to last, subject to routine maintenance and ordinary wear and tear. The “useful life” theory holds that granting the homeowner damages for the full replacement cost of the roof would result in unjust enrichment to the homeowner, who had contracted for a roof with a ten-year, rather than a fifteen-year, useful life.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brooke E. Beebe, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Ms. Beebe may be contacted at
brooke.beebe@csklegal.com
In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence
October 02, 2015 —
Edward Jaeger & William Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida considered whether a party to a contract, in order to be released from liability for its own negligence, needs to include an express reference to negligence in an exculpatory clause. The court held that, unlike an indemnification clause, so long as the language in an exculpatory clause is clear, the absence of the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” in an exculpatory clause does not, for that reason alone, render the exculpatory clause ineffective.
Background
Give Kids the World, Inc. (“GKW”) is a non-profit organization that provides free vacations to seriously ill children and their families at GKW’s resort village. To use the resort, vacationers have to fill out an application. Stacy and Eric Sanislo filled out an application to bring their seriously ill child to the village for a vacation and GKW accepted their application. Upon arriving at the resort, the Sanislos filled out a liability release form.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward Jaeger, White and Williams LLP and
William Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim
June 06, 2018 —
Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In USAA Texas Lloyds Company v. Menchaca, the Supreme Court of Texas clarified long-standing confusion regarding whether damages for bad faith are recoverable in the absence of a breach of contract under Texas law. The Menchaca case takes an in-depth dive into decades’ worth of Texas precedent and concludes that, under certain circumstances, an insured can recover policy benefits as damages for bad faith without finding that the insurer was in breach of contract.
The story of this case begins with Hurricane Ike in September 2008. Homeowner Gail Menchaca contacted her homeowner’s insurance company, USAA Texas Llloyds Company (“USAA”) to report that the storm had damaged her home. USAA sent an adjuster to investigate the claim, and USAA determined that although the policy covered some of the damage, no benefits would be paid under the policy because the repair estimate did not exceed the policy deductible. Five months later, at Ms. Menchaca’s request, another USAA adjuster inspected the property and reached the same conclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Barrese may be contacted at
blb@sdvlaw.com
Florida Enacts Sweeping Tort Reform Legislation, Raising Barriers to Insurance Coverage Claims
April 18, 2023 —
Walter J. Andrews, Andrea DeField & Jae Lynn Huckaba - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAs discussed in a recent
client alert, on March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill (HB) 837 into law, making it more difficult and costly for insurance policyholders of all sizes to sue insurers for bad faith by eliminating fee-shifting for most policyholders and requiring something “more than” negligence for bad faith claims.
HB 837’s Impact on Insurance Coverage Claims:
HB 837 is another in a series of reform legislation recently passed in Florida that significantly impacts policyholders’ ability to hold their insurers accountable for the wrongful failure to pay benefits due under the insurance contract. Recent efforts include last year’s repeal of the one-way fee-shifting statute for claims brought under residential and commercial property insurance policies. Previously, the fee-shifting statute allowed policyholders to recover attorneys’ fees from their insurers when the policyholder prevailed in a coverage action. HB 837 repeals
Section 627.428 of the Florida Statutes entirely, extending the repeal of the one-way fee-shifting statute to all types of insurance coverage disputes—not just those under residential and commercial property insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Jae Lynn Huckaba, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Huckaba may be contacted at jhuckaba@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act
August 29, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn federal contracting, contractors are sometimes torn about submitting a request for equitable adjustment (known as an “REA” under 48 C.F.R. 252.243-7002) or submitting a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. s. 7103), the latter requiring a final decision by the contracting officer and starts the clock with respect to interest and preserving rights. It is also sometimes not easy for the contracting officer receiving an REA to determine whether the REA is actually a claim under the Contract Disputes Act requiring more immediate action. This recent take by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hits the nail on the head:
We recognize that contracting officers will sometimes face the difficult challenge of determining whether a request for equitable adjustment is also a claim. Contractors must choose between submitting a claim—which starts the interest clock but requires the contracting officer to issue a final decision within 60 days—and submitting a mere request for equitable adjustment—which does not start the interest clock but gives the contractor more time to negotiate a settlement and possibly avoid hefty legal fees. The overlap between these two types of documents might create room for gamesmanship. For example, a contractor could submit a document that is a claim—starting the interest clock—but appears to be a mere request for equitable adjustment—causing the contracting officer to not issue a final decision within the 60-day deadline and allowing interest to accrue for months or years. But the government has tools to address this challenge: The contracting officer can communicate to the contractor that she is going to treat the document as a claim and issue a final decision within 60 days. Or the government can explicitly require the contractor to propose settlement terms and attempt to settle disputes before submitting a claim to the contracting officer for a final decision.
Zafer Construction Company v. U.S., 2022 WL 2793596, *5 (Fed.Cir. 2022).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion
July 23, 2014 —
Scott Patterson - CD CoverageIn J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
