California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.
The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”
Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”
Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”
The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”
The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.
The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed
October 16, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Supreme Court determined that insurance practices violating the state's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) could support a claim under the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Zhang v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 353 (2013).
Zhang purchased a CGL policy from California Capital Insurance Company. She sued California Capital in a dispute over coverage for fire damage to her commercial property. The complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UCL. In her UCL claim, Zhang alleged that California Capital had "engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue, and/or misleading advertising" by promising to provide timely coverage in the event of a compensable loss, when it had no intention of paying the true value of the insureds' covered claims.
Zhang specifically alleged unreasonable delays causing deterioration of her property; withholding of policy benefits; refusal to consider cost estimates; misinforming her as to the right to an appraisal; and falsely telling her mortgage holder that she did not intend to repair the property, resulting in foreclosure proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors
September 08, 2016 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental ConditionsThe lack of insurance coverage for a contractor’s faulty workmanship is the bane of both homeowners looking to recover damage for defective work and contractors seeking to defend against such claims. In many states, like Pennsylvania, courts hold that faulty workmanship is not an “occurrence” that is covered by a standard commercial general liability insurance policy. In other words, courts hold that CGL policies cover damage to other property not part of the construction project itself.
This is problematic for both the homeowner and the insured. For the homeowner, the lack of a policy providing indemnification sometimes means the homeowner is left trying to collect against a defendant, who is otherwise but has little to no assets against which to collect a judgment. For the contractor, the lack of a policy providing coverage means that assets are at risk and it could be forced to spend significant sums in attorneys fees defending the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property
March 30, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe New Mexico Court of Appeals presented a cogent analysis of claims for construction defects and the application of the "your work" exclusion under a CGL policy in Pulte Homes of New Mexico, Inc. v. Indiana Lumbermens Ins. Co., 2015 N.M. App. LEXIS 134 (N. M. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015).
Pulte built 107 homes. Pulte contracted with 'Western Building Supply (WBS) to provide windows and sliding glass doors for the homes. Pulte was named as an additional insured under WBS's policy with Lumbermens (ILM).
In 2007, a large group of homeowners sued Pulte, alleging numerous construction defects in their homes. Among the defects were windows that leaked and sliding glass doors that stuck and did not close completely. Many of the homeowners arbitrated their claims against Pulte. In May 2009, Pulte tendered its first demand for a defense to ILM. The arbitration award against Pulte found that windows and doors did not operate properly and had been replaced by Pulte.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete
November 07, 2012 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiIf ever in need of a concise, well-reasoned opinion on “occurrence,” “property damage” and applicability of the business risk exclusions, turn to Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Construction, Inc., 2012 Wis Ct. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012).
A contractor was hired to install concrete during construction of seven gas stations. Red-D-Mix provided the concrete. The contractor and Red-D-Mix were eventually sued by the gas stations, based upon allegations that the concrete was defectively manufactured and installed. The gas stations alleged that Red-D-Mix supplied concrete that was defective and resulted in damages, including the need to repair nearby asphalt.
Red-D-Mix tendered to its insurers, who denied coverage. Suit was filed and the insurers moved for summary judgment. The trial court determined there were no allegations of either “property damage” or an “occurrence.” Therefore, there was no duty to defend or indemnify Red-D-Mix.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend
December 27, 2021 —
Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment.
In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National.
When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Vita may be contacted at
JVita@sdvlaw.com
Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods
July 22, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelState of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem.
State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named to Hudson Valley Magazine’s 2022 Top Lawyers List
January 24, 2022 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that nine Partners from the Hawthorne, NY office have been named to the 2022 Hudson Valley Magazine Top Lawyers List.
2022 Hudson Valley Magazine’s Top Lawyers:
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
