Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond
April 11, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to Miller Act payment bond claims, repairing one’s own work does NOT extend the one year statute of limitations to file suit on a Miler Act payment bond. Belonger Corp., Inc. v. BW Contracting Services, Inc., 2018 WL 704379, *3 (E.D. Wisconsin 2018) (“The courts that have considered this question tend to agree that, once a subcontractor completes its work under the subcontract, repairs or corrections to that work do not fall within the meaning of ‘labor’ or ‘materials’ and, as such, do not extend the Miller Act’s one-year statute of limitations.”).
Well, what if the subcontractor was repairing its own work due to an issue caused by another subcontractor?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court.
The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.”
The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties.
Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment.
The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.”
The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors.
The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.”
The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beyond the COI: The Importance of an Owner's or Facilities Manager's Downstream Insurance Review Program
March 15, 2021 —
Hugh D. Hughes, Eric M. Clarkson & Mollie H. Levy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The risk of bodily injury lawsuits is an unavoidable reality for property owners and facilities managers (“FMs”) of large commercial sites such as universities, malls, office buildings, or stadiums. Any person who steps foot on the property is a potential plaintiff, including students, tenants, customers, contractors, and vendors.
Insurance mitigates these risks, but a property owner’s or FM’s risk transfer strategy should include more than their own suite of general liability and other third-party policies. Ensuring additional insured status on a vendor’s or contractor’s policy is also essential to a comprehensive risk transfer strategy. In a functional risk transfer program, a vendor’s or contractor’s general liability insurer should defend and indemnify property owners or FMs as additional insureds (“AIs”) for liability for bodily injury caused, in whole or in part, by the vendor’s or contractor’s operations. When this works as intended, it effectively transfers costs associated with such a lawsuit from the owner or FM to the vendor’s or contractor’s insurer. It also increases the insurance limits available for a loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Mollie H. Levy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at HHughes@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Levy may be contacted at MLevy@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Department of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation Projects
December 04, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn October 29, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final rule in the Federal Register which amends and revises the environmental National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures rules employed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). There is a renewed interest in transportation infrastructure projects, and recent legislation is intended to accelerate required environmental reviews.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed
April 22, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiPartial dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages for the insurer's bad faith was granted by the court. Bryant v. General Cas. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15369 (N.D. N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019).
Bryant purchased from General Casualty Company of Wisconsin (GCCW) a commercial property and casualty policy to cover the insured premises. While the building was rented to a tenant who operated a restaurant, it sustained a collapse. GCCW refused to cover the loss. Bryant sued. In addition to the cost of repairing and replacing the damage to the property, Bryant alleged he was out the value of rental revenue from his tenant, which was forced to close the restaurant and relocated as a result of the unrepaired damage.
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
No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss
June 18, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found there was no coverage under the commercial property policy for loss suffered by the insured condominium association due to a sink hole. Bahama Bay II Condo. Ass'n. v. Untied Nat'l Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67487 (M.D. Fla. April 11, 2019).
The plaintiff condominium association had thirteen buildings inside their complex. On December 9, 2016, a sinkhole appeared near Building 43. The building was vacated and declared unsafe. Plaintiff's board excused Building 43 owners from paying association dues.
Plaintiff submitted a claim to the insurer for benefits under the policy. The insurer inspected and accepted coverage for Building 43 under the policy's Catastrophic Ground Cover Collapse (CGCC) provision and issued a check for $290,000 for immediate repairs. The insurer denied coverage for Buildings 42, 44, and 45; repairs to the foundation of all buildings, the retaining wall and outdoor fences; land, landscaping, and patios, uncollected association dues, and condominium unit owner property.
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
2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDon MacGregor, Project Manager and General Contractor with Bert L. Howe & Associates, will be joining Brian Kahn, Esq. of Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger, Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. of Kiesel Law, Hon. Peter Lichtmen (ret), Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock (ret), and Peter S. Curry of Curry Stenger Engineering as a panelist in the break-out session Working Smarter With Technology at the 2014 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar being held May 15th and 16th at the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California.
With a strong focus on the topic of this year’s seminar, Back to Business . . . Working Smarter, Not Harder, the panel will discuss ways that technology can assist our industry in working more efficiently, saving money and providing a better product. Conversely, the panel will also acknowledge the limitations of technology and areas where the use of advanced technology may not be appropriate.
The information provided will be of benefit to the construction defect litigator but equally valuable to other types of complex litigation. Accordingly, this panel will appeal to those whose scope of work goes beyond the bounds of construction defect. A brief outline of topics that will be addressed by each panelist include remote virtual appearance and deposition attendances, document management software, how to create, manage and edit documents using remote technology, technological tools that allow for easier communications, transfer of information and flexibility, expert technology, and technology in mediation and trial.
The panel discussion will go beyond past seminar discussions in that they will discuss and demonstrate tools that are just coming into use now as well as new tools which are being released prior to the seminar.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alleging Property Damage in Construction Defect Lawsuit
September 14, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen there is a construction defect lawsuit, there is an insurance coverage issue or consideration. As I have said repeatedly in other articles, it is all about maximizing insurance coverage regardless of whether you are the plaintiff prosecuting the construction defect claim or the contractor(s) alleged to have committed the construction defect and property damage. It is about triggering first, the insurer’s duty to defend, and second, the insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for the property damage.
The construction defect claim and lawsuit begins with how the claim and, then, lawsuit is couched knowing that the duty to defend is triggered by allegations in the lawsuit (complaint). Thus, preparing the lawsuit (complaint) is vital to maximize the insurer’s duty to defend its insured.
In a recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit, Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 WL 4345199 (11th Cir. 2020), a general contractor was sued for construction defects in the construction of a custom home. A dispute arose pre-completion and the owner hired another contractor to complete the house and remediate construction defects. The contractor’s CGL insurer originally provided a defense to the general contractor but then withdrew the defense and filed an action for declaratory relief asking for the declaration that it had no duty to defend the contractor because the underlying lawsuit did NOT allege property damage. The trial court agreed with the contractor and granted summary judgment in its favor finding that the underlying complaint did not allege property damage beyond defective work. But, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed.
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
