US Court Disputes $1.8B AECOM Damage Award in ‘Remarkable Fraud’ Suit
April 26, 2021 —
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordA federal appeals court has thrown out a $1.8-billion award granted by a lower court three years ago to an AECOM unit in a bizarre legal battle involving a Nevada company that claimed to have won multiple contracts using the name of Morrison Knudsen—the former well-known Boise-based construction contractor that was sold in 1996, and through acquisitions, became part of design-build giant AECOM in 2014.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"
December 15, 2016 —
Ellen Burrows – White and Williams LLPCalling into question the continued validity of the so-called “Bellefonte Rule,” on December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a facultative reinsurance contract limit is presumptively all-inclusive and “caps” the reinsurer’s total exposure even where the reinsured policy pays defense costs in addition to the limit. Global Reinsurance Corporation v. Century Indemnity Company Docket No. 15-2164-cv (December 8, 2016).[1]
In Bellefonte Reinsurance Company v. Aetna 903 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990), the court ruled that a reinsurer was not liable to pay defense costs above the stated reinsurance contract limit. Although litigants argued that this ruling was dependent on the fact that the reinsured policy limits were defense cost-inclusive, a later panel of the Second Circuit applied the “cap” ruling in Bellefonte to a situation where the reinsured policy limit was not cost-inclusive and where the insurer was obligated to pay defense costs in addition to the policy limit. Unigard Security Insurance Company v. North River Insurance Company 4 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ellen Burrows, White and Williams LLPMs. Burrows may be contacted at
burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com
Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch
May 12, 2016 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn April 21, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion that immediately drew the ire of the greater real estate development industry and those concerned about affordable housing in a state in the midst of unprecedented soaring rent and housing prices. The Landmark Towers Assn., Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A., 2016 COA 61, decision is the result of protracted litigation arising out of construction and sale of the ill-fated European Village (“Village”) residential community. For a thorough summary of the origins of the development and the unfortunate story of the man behind the curtain, review the Denver Post’s article titled “Zachary Davidson, Denver Landmark developer, and his fall from grace.” (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22656011/fall-from-grace-zach-davidson-landmark denver)
Despite the unique facts and circumstances relating to the questionable dealings by the developer, Mr. Zachary Davidson, the decision now stands to turn the Colorado real estate development business on its head. Specifically, a group of condominium owners, who did not live in the Village, learned that their properties had been included in a special district, the Marin Metropolitan District (“District”), to finance the Village. Prior to their purchase, Mr. Davidson failed to disclose to the condominium owners that they would be responsible for financing the Village’s development through previously issued bonds by the District to be paid for through their property taxes. Understandably frustrated by this discovery the condominium owners, through the Landmark Towers Association, Inc. (“Landmark HOA”), investigated the origin of these unforeseen property taxes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn July, Pamar Enterprises was constructing a water main in Bad Axe, Michigan and an error on their part sent water and sewage into homes. This was similar to what happened when they constructed a water main in 2007 in Lyon Township. Now Michigan Representative Terry Brown wants the state to stop awarding contracts to Pamar until the lawsuits are resolved. “I’ve asked [the Michigan Department of Transportation] not to have any more contracts with Pamar,” said Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown is also seeking that the state withholds payments to Pamar. “I was assured that they would not be getting any more payments until the situation was satisfactorily resolved.”
In the 2007 case, Pamar won in Oakland County Circuit Court, but the Michigan Court of Appeals, found that Pamar failed in its “duty to exercise reasonable care when it entered onto an altered private property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss
November 05, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured subcontractor sought coverage under its Builder's Risk policy for loss despite already being paid under contract the amount sought under the policy. MKB Constr. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136096 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 24, 2014).
MKB contracted with the Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) to place gravel fill for a new building pad upon which a school building would be placed in Emmonak, Alaska. The project site was built on tundra that melted in the summer, becoming marshy and pocketed by pools of standing water. LYSD provided the bidding contractors with information stating that settlements of 3 to 9 inches could be expected in areas with 30 inches of fill.
The contract was awarded to MKB, who subsequently realized it had under bid the amount of gravel fill that would be required. The estimated difference in the amount bid and the amount that would be needed was 6,583 cubic yards. LYSD refused to increase the contract price.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New Case Law Alert: Licensed General Contractors Cannot Sue Owners to Recover Funds for Work Performed by An Unlicensed Subcontractor
May 30, 2022 —
Michele A. Ellison & Samantha R. Riggen - Gibbs GidenThe opinion in Kim v. TWA Construction, Inc. (2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 412) issued by the Court of Appeal of California Sixth Appellate District, on May 13, 2022, makes it clear that a properly licensed general contractor cannot bring an action for compensation from an owner for work performed by an unlicensed subcontractor.
California licensing law has long made explicit that an unlicensed contractor cannot bring or maintain any action to collect or recover compensation for work that contractor performed unless they were duly licensed at all times during the performance of that work. This new ruling extends the scope of this restriction to licensed contractors who hired unlicensed subcontractors.
The Underlying Dispute
The case involved a dispute between property owners and their former general contractor and its principal (collectively “TWA”). The property owners hired TWA to construct a home, and during the early stages of the project, TWA hired an unlicensed subcontractor to perform tree trimming services and to remove a large eucalyptus tree. The subcontractor partially removed the eucalyptus tree, but was stopped by a neighbor, and it was discovered that the tree was partly located on the neighbor’s property. The neighbor brought suit against the property owners, and eventually TWA, for the damage. The property owners subsequently filed a cross-complaint against TWA, and TWA in turn filed a cross-complaint against the property owners.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michele A. Ellison, Gibbs Giden and
Samantha R. Riggen, Gibbs Giden
Ms. Ellison may be contacted at mellison@gibbsgiden.com
Ms. Riggen may be contacted at sriggen@gibbsgiden.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable
January 26, 2016 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule.
In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay.
The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people.
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
Recent Regulatory Activity
October 25, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelSelected federal regulatory actions taken or proposed by several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency:
EPA Actions.
On September 15, 2021, EPA’s Water Office issued a memo rescinding a January 2021 guidance document that purported to provide the regulatory community with EPA’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in the case of County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. That case involved a discharge of pollutants to groundwater which eventually made their way to the Pacific Ocean. Was an NPDES permit required to authorize this discharge, which was not initially made to a navigable body of water? The text of the Clean Water Act provided little guidance, and the matter has become very controversial. The Court held that if the discharge was the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge, a permit may be required, and the Court described some factors that could influence a determination that there was the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. However, EPA has rescinded the January 2021 guidance, opining that EPA’s earlier analysis was inconsistent the Court’s opinion, and that the guidance was issued without proper deliberation within EPA or with its federal partners. Until new guidance is prepared, EPA will continue to apply “site-specific, science-based evaluations” to resolve these questions. On October 1, 2021, EPA released its “Climate Adaption Action Plan.” Briefly, EPA will take steps to ensure that its programs and policies consider current and future impacts of climate change and how the impacts disproportionately affect certain underserved or environmental justice communities. The agency’s air and water quality programs, contaminated sites activities and chemical safety and pollution prevention programs will be analyzed to determine their impact. Also on October 1, 2021, EPA released its draft FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan to protect health and the environment. The plan, essentially an internal directive to all offices and regions, reflects a new “foundational principle”—to advance justice and equity by taking on the climate crisis and taking decisive action to advance civil rights and environmental justice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
