Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider
June 21, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to drafting and negotiating a subcontract, there are provisions that should be important to you from a risk assessment standpoint. From the subcontractor’s standpoint, below are questions you should ask, or issues you should consider, as you go through the subcontract. These are the same questions and issues that are also important to a contractor as the contractor will want to ensure these issues are included in the subcontract. By asking yourself these questions, you can check to see how the subcontract addresses these issues, and how the risk should be negotiated. Hopefully, you are working with counsel to make sure you understand what risk you are assuming and those provisions you want to try to push back on. Asking yourself these questions, or considering these questions, will help you go through the subcontract with a purpose based on the risk profile of the project and certain risk you don’t want to assume.
- Prime Contract –> Does the subcontract incorporate the prime contract? Make sure to request the prime contract since the subcontract will identify the prime contract as part of the Subcontract Documents and will require you to assume towards the contractor the same obligations the contractor is required to assume towards the owner.
- Scope of Work –> What is the scope of work? Is it clear. Make sure the scope is clear and you understand the scope.
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
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/15/23) – Proptech Solutions, Supply Chain Pivots, and the Inflation Reduction Act
March 06, 2023 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThis week’s round-up explores how proptech could alleviate the financial burden of property owners’ vacant office space, manufacturing firms are bolstering the industrial real estate sector, a 200-MW Texas project is first to leverage IRA tax credit for stand-alone energy storage, and more.
- Proptech could serve as an economic regenerator to the rise in empty office space that has recently become a major financial liability for businesses. (Joe Dyton, Connected Real Estate Magazine)
- The global business process outsourcing (BPO) industry and accompanying real estate infrastructure that supports it should be aware of the potential impact of AI chatbots becoming capable of optimizing customer service with minimal human input. (Zain Jaffer, Forbes)
- Industrial real estate is being bolstered by manufacturing firms increasingly returning their operations to the U.S., which was already one of the hottest commercial property sectors in the last decade. (JLL)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy
April 28, 2016 —
Renata L. Hoddinott & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Scheer v. The State Bar of California (4/14/16 – Case no. 2:14-cv-04829-JFW) reversed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision that a suspended attorney’s debt was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).
In Scheer, the client (Clark) retained attorney Scheer to help modify his home mortgage loan. Clark paid Scheer $5,500 before any modification occurred. Clark then fired Scheer and sought return of the $5,500 under California’s mandatory attorney fee dispute arbitration program. An arbitrator concluded that, although Scheer performed competently, she violated California Civil Code §2944.7(a) by receiving advance fees for residential mortgage modification services. Although the arbitrator believed that Scheer’s violations were neither willful nor malicious, he concluded California law required a full refund of the improperly collected fees. Scheer made a few payments against the arbitration award but, claiming a lack of funds, failed to pay the outstanding balance.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage Where Ordinary Negligence is Inseparably Intertwined With Professional Service
August 17, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Energy Ins. Mutual Ltd. v. Ace American Ins. Co. (No. A140656, filed 7/11/17, ord. Pub. 8/10/17), a California appeals court found that a professional services exclusion barred coverage for wrongful death and other claims blamed on pipeline inspectors’ failure to identify and properly mark a gas pipeline that was ruptured during construction of another pipeline, resulting in an explosion and fire.
In Energy Ins. Mutual, a pipeline owner hired two temporary construction inspectors through a staffing company. The inspectors had to ensure compliance with engineering and safety standards, practices and procedures for pipeline construction, and understand construction drawings and blueprints. They worked together with one of the owner’s employees to perform daily surveillance to ensure the integrity of the pipeline and avoid third party damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Los Angeles Wildfires Will Cause Significant Insured Losses, Ranking Amongst the Most Destructive in California's History
January 14, 2025 —
Morningstar DBRSWildfires currently burning in the Pacific Palisades, Eaton, Hurst and other Los Angeles neighborhoods will cause significant losses for the insurance industry, in
Morningstar DBRS’ view. The fires have already burned more than 1,100 homes and threaten more than 28,000 additional structures, according to local fire officials. Preliminary estimates point to total insured losses in excess of $8 billion depending on the final number of properties being affected by the wildfires. By way of comparison, the 2018 Woolsey Fire, which destroyed 1,643 structures just north of Los Angeles, caused more than $6 billion in property damages at that time. Morningstar DBRS expects the ongoing wildfires to have a negative but manageable impact on major property insurers active in the Californian market, with the impact somewhat mitigated by their use of reinsurance and their high degree of diversification. Similarly, losses should be manageable for the global reinsurance industry and not affect their credit profiles.
While leading U.S. property insurers are in good financial condition, the California property insurance market has been challenging because of high wildfire and other natural catastrophe risks combined with regulatory restrictions on coverage and pricing, leading many insurers to re-think their product offering, including an outright exit from the market. For example, market leaders such as State Farm and Allstate started reducing their exposure to the California market beginning 2022-2023. It is therefore possible that a larger than usual portion of the losses caused by the wildfires will be uninsured or may be covered under the California FAIR Plan, which is designed to provide fire coverage up to $3 million per home and spread the risk across the industry when it is not available from traditional carriers.
This event reinforces the need for adequate rate increases on home insurance in California, based on forward-looking pricing and catastrophe modelling, as well as for additional fire prevention and mitigation initiatives. However, property insurance affordability is likely to remain a challenge in the state going forward, with many property owners opting to remain uninsured or under-insured because of the high costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy
April 03, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court disagreed with the insurer's strident claim that Wisconsin followed the manifestation trigger for deciding coverage under a homeowner's policy. Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 2, 2013).
Several years after their house was constructed, the insureds discovered water damage. Chubb denied the claim. The insureds sued. Chubb moved for summary judgment and argued that the loss first manifested many years after its policy expired. Further, Chubb argued that Wisconsin followed the manifestation trigger for first-party property insurance, meaning that only the insurance policy in effect when the loss manifested was required to respond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New WOTUS Rule
November 13, 2023 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers amended the regulation to conform the definition of “waters of the United States” to conform to the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. See the prior blog post about the Supreme Court’s ruling:
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency – Construction and Utility Law | Atlanta | AHC Law
Federal Register :: Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming
Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
