Kiewit Selected for Rebuild of Collapsed Baltimore Bridge
September 02, 2024 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordKiewit Infrastructure Co. has been tapped to rebuild Baltimore’s I-695/Francis Scott Key Bridge under a progressive design-build procurement announced Aug. 29 by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). Work on the expected four-year reconstruction effort is scheduled to begin next year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damage Caused Not by Superstorm Sandy, But by Faulty Workmanship, Not Covered
December 10, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court adopted the Report and Recommendations (R&R) of the magistrate judge, finding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship in replacing a roof for an apartment complex. Burlington Ins. Co. v. PCGNY Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167814 (S.D. N. Y. Sept. 16, 2024).
Skyline Restoration was hired by the apartment complex to replace the apartments' roofs. Skyline subcontracted with PCGNY Corporation. The roofs were later damaged during Superstorm Sandy. Defendant Affiliated FM Insurance Company ("Affilliated"), a subrogee of the owner of the apartment complex, sued Skyline for defective, faulty and unworkmanlike removal and replacement of the roofs. Skyline filed a Third-Party Complaint against PCGNY.
Plaintiff Burlington Insurance Company filed this coverage action against Skyline, Affiliated, PCGNY and others seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend and/or indemnify PCGNY and/or Skyline, and that it was permitted to withdraw from the defense of PCGNY. Burlington filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was referred to the magistrate judge who recommended that Burlington be granted a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify PCGNY or Skyline and that it be allowed to withdraw from the defense of PCGNY in the underlying case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing
February 28, 2018 —
Omar Parra and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Publications & InsightsAs Dwight Schrute of hit NBC show “The Office” said, “identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!” In response, Congress has passed a variety of legislation over the years aimed at curbing identity theft. One such piece of legislation, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as amended by corollary acts, prohibits the printing of more than the last 5 digits of the credit card number or the credit card number’s expiration date on any sales receipt. Anyone who “willfully fails to comply with [the requirements] is liable to that consumer” for statutory or actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and potential punitive damages. But is a statutory violation of the FCRA alone a sufficient injury to confer Article III standing? No, says the Ninth Circuit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Omar Parra, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II , Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMetrostudy surveyed the Chicago, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis/St. Paul markets and found an increase in subdivisions—“[n]ot a re-hashing of existing communities or a re-configuring of existing developments, but new land, being newly developed,” according to Builder magazine.
Builder reported that in 2010 only 383 new lots were delivered to the Chicago market, but in just the first six months of 2014, 1,500 new lots have been delivered. Furthermore, the Twin Cities had a total of 964 lots delivered in 2010. “In 2013, there were 3,683 new lot deliveries. Indianapolis has seen a total of 1,400 new lots delivered in the first six months of 2014, compared to just 650 through the first half of 2010.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California MCLE Seminar at BHA Sacramento July 11th
June 11, 2014 —
Kimberly Albarq-CDJ STAFFThere are just three weeks remaining to sign up for Bert L. Howe & Associate’s next California MCLE seminar, UNDERSTANDING CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION.
This activity will be presented on Friday, July 11th at noon, at BHA’s Sacramento office:
2520 Venture Oaks Way
Suite 435
Sacramento, CA 95833
There is no cost for attendance at this seminar and lunch will be provided.
This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0.0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit. The seminar will be presented by Don MacGregor, general contractor and project manager.
Water intrusion through doors, windows and roofing systems, as well as soil and foundation-related movement, and the resultant damage associated therewith, are the triggering effects for the vast majority of homeowner complaints today and serve as the basis for most residential construction defect litigation. The graphic and animation-supported workshop/lecture activity will focus on the residential construction process from site preparation through occupancy, an examination of associated damages most often encountered when investigating construction defect claims, and the inter-relationships between the developer, general contractor, sub trades and design professionals. Typical plaintiff homeowner/HOA expert allegations will be examined in connection with those building components most frequently associated with construction defect and claims litigation.
The workshop will examine:
* Typical construction materials, and terminology associated with residential construction
* The installation process and sequencing of major construction elements, including interrelationship with other building assemblies
* The parties (subcontractors) typically associated with major construction assemblies and components
* An analysis of exposure/allocation to responsible parties.
Attendance at THE UNDERSTANDING CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION seminar will provide the attendee with:
* A greater understanding of the terms and conditions encountered when dealing with common construction defect issues
* A greater understanding of contractual scopes of work encountered when reviewing construction contract documents
* The ability to identify, both quickly and accurately, potentially responsible parties
* An understanding of damages most often associated with construction defects, as well as a greater ability to identify conditions triggering coverage
To register for the event, please email Don MacGregor at dmac@berthowe.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Don at (800) 482-1822 (office) or (714) 713-4956 (cell).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit
November 03, 2016 —
Jesse Howard Witt – The Witt Law FirmOne of the key reasons for builders to maintain liability insurance is to cover the cost of hiring defense counsel and paying litigation costs in the event of a construction defect lawsuit. If a builder loses a lawsuit, it will typically be responsible for paying the plaintiff’s litigation costs. Today, the Colorado Court of Appeals clarified that the “supplementary payments” section of a standard Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy covers such costs, even if the carrier has reserved the right to dispute whether it has a duty to indemnify the actual damages awarded. This may seem counter-intuitive, insofar as a carrier may owe costs even if it does not cover the underlying loss, but the court’s decision is consistent with the plain language of the CGL form that most carriers use.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt may be contacted at his website www.witt.law
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly
May 03, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesInsurance policies, particularly property insurance policies, have a concealment or fraud provision that, in essence, gives the insurer an out if the insured submits a fraudulent claim, a false claim, or conceals material facts. Unlike a traditional fraud claim where a party needs to prove intent, the provision is broad enough that it does not require any intent behind making a false statement. See Mezadieu v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D691c (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For this reason, and as exemplified below, do NOT blindly rely on a public adjuster or loss consultant’s estimate that contains false statements because those false statements, particularly if you know they are false, can play out badly for you! Review the estimate and ask questions about it to make sure you understand what is being included in the loss or damages estimate.
In Mezadieu, a homeowner submitted a claim to her property insurance carrier due to a second-floor water leak emanating from her bathroom. She submitted an estimate from her public adjuster that included damages for her kitchen cabinets directly below the second-floor bathroom, as well as other items on her first-floor. Her carrier denied coverage based on the exclusion that the policy excludes damage caused by “[c]onstant or repeated seepage of water or steam…which occurs over a period of time.”
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
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
