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
Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse
October 29, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss claims for loss due to the imminent collapse of the insureds' basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4364914 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2014).
The insureds noticed cracks throughout their basement walls. It was discovered that the condition was the result of a chemical compound used in the concrete of certain basement walls in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The insureds contended that due to the cracking, the basement walls suffered a substantial impairment to their structural integrity making it only a matter of time until the walls collapsed.
The insureds notified their insurer, Peerless. An engineer hired by Peerless determined the walls' condition was caused by poor workmanship and defective materials. On this basis, Peerless denied coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future
September 06, 2021 —
Alexandra McManus & Hussein Cholkamy - Construction ExecutiveOn any given day, there are a multitude of variables playing out on construction jobsites, from maintaining daily logs to track hundreds of workers to creating daily schedules to keep projects on track. What made an industry that’s arguably about 20 years in the past get a dramatic technology boost five years into the future? A global pandemic that nobody saw coming.
When COVID-19 made its first appearance on construction sites in early 2020, the domino effect of project shutdowns and labor shortages created uncertainty along with budget and timeline nightmares. The pandemic shook up the industry, with many projects coming to a screeching halt. As general contractors scrambled to keep their projects moving and workers safe, technology proved to be the solution.
With jobsites shutting down, coupled with a nationwide labor shortage, real-time visibility over workforce variables, such as who was on-site, where they were and who they interacted with was more important than ever. Safe proximity tracking, virtual density and access control technologies helped construction companies gain more control, visibility and the ability to deal with the ever-changing regulations due to the global pandemic. More importantly, it helped keep their valuable workforce safe.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alexandra McManus & Hussein Cholkamy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Cholkamy may be contacted at hussein@eyrus.com
Ms. McManus may be contacted at alex@eyrus.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clearly Determining in Contract Who Determines Arbitrability of Dispute
April 26, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAs you know from prior postings: “Arbitration provisions are creatures of contract and must be construed ‘as a matter of contract interpretation.’ ” Fallang Family Limited Partnership v. Privcap Companies, LLC, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D639e (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (citation omitted). Thus, if you prefer to arbitrate potential disputes, instead of litigating potential disputes, you want to include an arbitration provision in your contract. While there are positives and negatives to arbitration, no different than litigation, these positives and negatives should be considered during the contract negotiation process when dealing with the dispute resolution process in the contract.
Generally, under the law, the arbitrability of a dispute is determined by the court. However, this can be deferred to the arbitrator with clear and unmistakable language in the contract.
By way of example, the American Arbitration Association includes a rule that allows an arbitrator to rule on the arbitrability of the dispute, i.e., the claims asserted are subject to the governing arbitration provision in the contract. Recent law has suggested that if the objective is to authorize an American Arbitration Association arbitrator to make this determination, the contract clearly and unmistakably needs to state this intent and generally referring to the American Arbitration Association rules is not good enough. For this reason, I have included in arbitration provisions language that specifically states, “In the event of any dispute as to the arbitrability of any claim or dispute, the parties agree that an appointed arbitrator within the American Arbitration Association shall make this determination.” I have also included in arbitration provisions the converse so that if there is a dispute as to the arbitrability of a claim or dispute, the court, and not the arbitrator, will make this determination.
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
Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
November 13, 2023 —
Yaron Shaham - Kahana FeldIn order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state.
California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party.
Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Shaham, Kahana FeldMr. Shaham may be contacted at
yshaham@kahanafeld.com
Housing Markets Continue to Improve
February 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders reports that for a sixth consecutive month there has been an increase in the number of housing markets that have shown improvement. The January report saw 242 improving markets, which in February grew to 259. The NAHB notes that there are now improving markets in every state, “suggesting that the housing recovery has substantial momentum.”
Not all markets showed continued improvement. Three metropolitan areas were dropped from the list of improving markets, but another twenty were added. The NAHB has been tracking this data since September 2011, when there were only twelve improving markets through the whole country.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered
June 10, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe employee exclusions in the employer's CGL and Umbrella policies barred coverage. Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. April 28, 2015).
Linda Nunley was killed while working for Missouri Hardwood Charcoal, Inc. The kiln's large steel door had been removed and was leaning upright against another kiln when it blew over and crushed Ms. Nunley. Her family filed a wrongful death suit against Junior Flowers, the company's sole owner, director, and executive officer. The complaint alleged that Flowers was negligent in ordering employees to lean the kiln doors upright, even though he knew it was unsafe. The complaint further alleged that Flowers breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Nunley and that his actions were "something more" that a breach of the company's duty to provide a safe workplace.
Flowers requested a defense under CGL and Umbrella policies issued by Lumbermen's. The policies insured Missouri Hardwood and its executive officers, but excluded liability for a work-related injury to an "employee of the insured." The policies also had a "separation of insureds" provision, stating that the insurance applied "separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought." Lumbermen's denied coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company
February 14, 2023 —
Colleen E. Hastie - Traub LiebermanIn a case brought before the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, Plaintiff alleged injury while performing work at a commercial premises in Brooklyn when he rolled his ankle on a jackhammered/chopped cellar floor slab while carrying a metal pipe from the main floor to the cellar on the subject premises. The property was owned by New York City entities, who were listed as Defendants in the underlying suit. A Construction Company was hired as the general contractor and construction manager for the work, who hired the Electrical Contractor to perform the main electrical fit out for the subject premises. The Electrical Contractor then hired Traub Lieberman’s client, the Electrical Subcontractor, to work on cellar-level conduit, cabling, backboxes, and lighting control systems. The Electrical Contractor, as Second Third-Party Plaintiff, brought suit against the Electrical Subcontractor, as Second Third-Party Defendant, for damages related to the underlying suit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colleen E. Hastie, Traub LiebermanMs. Hastie may be contacted at
chastie@tlsslaw.com
