FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

February 27, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Reversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019). While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

August 07, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Have you entered into a subcontract that requires you to arbitrate disputes? If so, does the arbitration provision require you to arbitrate your dispute outside of Florida? If so, the case of Sachse Construction and Development Corp. v. Affirmed Drywall, Corp., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1622e (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) applies and reinforces the notion: Read and consider what you sign! In Sachse Construction, a drywall subcontractor entered into a subcontract for a construction project in Miami with an arbitration provision. The subcontract provided that it shall be construed in accordance with Michigan law and required that arbitration shall take pace in Michigan per the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Insuring Lease/Leaseback Projects

August 19, 2024 — David G. Jordan & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Overview Several states utilize a unique statutory mechanism to allow school districts to finance the construction of public-school facilities. This arrangement (known as a “lease-leaseback agreement”) allows a school district to lease property to a contractor/developer, who then constructs or renovates a school facility on the property. Once the work is completed, the contractor/developer leases the school building back to the school district. The school district then makes lease payments over time, often many years, which can be structured in various ways to spread out the cost of construction. The arrangement typically requires a site lease for the land leased to the contractor/developer, a facilities lease for the lease-back of the school building to the school district and a traditional construction agreement. In some ways, the arrangement resembles a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) whereby a public entity collaborates with a private entity for the purpose of financing and delivering a project traditionally provided solely by the public sector. Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context

March 06, 2022 — Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and Williams
A business court in Massachusetts has weighed in on two key issues affecting allocation of insurance coverage for long-tail liabilities in Massachusetts. Specifically, in Crosby Valve LLC et al. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al.,[1] involving asbestos bodily injury claims, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session addressed:

• whether defense costs in long-tail cases were subject to the same pro rata allocation scheme the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) adopted to govern successively triggered insurers' indemnity obligations in Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company;[2] and
• whether “non-cumulation” provisions, like those addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Viking Pump,[3] were consistent with this pro rata allocation methodology.

As to the first issue — i.e., allocation of defense costs — Judge Salinger declined to follow Boston Gas, and found the SJC’s holding in that case was limited to an insurers’ indemnity obligations. The SJC in Boston Gas had focused on the language of the policy insuring agreement, saying “[t]his policy applies to ... property damage ... which occurs anywhere during the policy period.” The SJC had also pointed to the policy definition of “occurrence” as “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”[4] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LISA D. LOVE

March 19, 2024 — Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute Resolver
Company: JAMS Office Location: New York, NY Email: llove@jamsadr.com Website: https://www.jamsadr.com/love/ Law School: Georgetown University Law Center (J.D. 1984) Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration, mediation, neutral evaluation and special master services Affiliated ADR organizations: JAMS, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and CPR Geographic area served: Domestic and International Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral. A: I started my legal career practicing law as a complex commercial transactions attorney in the corporate department of a major New York law firm for eleven years. After leaving the firm, I served as chief legal counsel to several municipalities and as co-founding partner of a boutique finance, infrastructure and real estate law firm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

---

Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

April 13, 2017 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The consortium building the $3.2-billion Champlain Bridge in Montreal has sued Canada’s government for $93 million, claiming transportation officials gave it late notice of stricter load limits that could add to delay and make it liable for tens of millions of dollars in penalties, according to Canadian press reports and a stock analyst’s comments. A spokeswoman for the team’s lead firm, engineer-contractor SNC-Lavalin, confirms the March 28 filing in Quebec Superior Court but declined further comment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

In a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.

McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.

AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.

She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.

Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---