Japan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant Offline
September 10, 2018 —
Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-RecordA magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido on Sept. 6, leaving at least seven dead and damaging buildings and structures in the region, including a 1,650MW coal-fired thermal power plant that was taken offline.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Rubenstone, ENRMr. Rubenstone may be contacted at
rubenstonej@enr.com
FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern
July 16, 2014 —
Tariq Panja – BloombergFIFA may reduce the number of stadiums used to host the 2018 World Cup in Russia on concern that their economic viability after the monthlong event ends.
FIFA President Sepp Blatter said a day after Germany’s 1-0 win over Argentina in the final that a delegation from soccer’s governing body will meet Russian tournament organizers in September to discuss plans for the next edition.
Blatter gave a mark of 9.25 out of 10 to an “exceptional” Brazil World Cup, which cost $11 billion to stage. The tournament is a difficult challenge for organizers, Blatter said, illustrated by construction delays at almost all of the 12 arenas used for the 64 games in Brazil.
“The World Cup has taken such a dimension that the organization is hard work for the organizing country and also for FIFA,” Blatter told reporters at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where Germany claimed a fourth title and became the first European country to win the tournament in South America.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tariq Panja, BloombergMr. Panja may be contacted at
tpanja@bloomberg.net
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim
March 19, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined the policy's breach of contract exclusion precluded coverage for a claim against the general contractor insured for construction defects. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. McAtamncy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 497 (N. D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024).
McAtamney, a general contractor dong business as Kilrea Construction, was hired by Jeffrey Horowitz for a home-renovation project. After completion of the project, Horowitz discovered defects in the work. He filed a complaint alleging that Kilrea breached obligations to construct and complete the work in an expeditious and workmanlike manner, free from any faults and defects. He brought claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, negligence, neglignet supervision, and declaratory relief.
Kilrea's insurer, Mt. Hawley, agreed to defend, but reserved the right to later deny coverage for any uncovered claims. The breach of contract exclusion provided there was no duty to defend a claim for property damage arising from breach of an express or implied contract or warranty.
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
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment
December 23, 2024 —
Lisa M. Rolle & Justyn Verzillo - Traub LiebermanIn this subrogation action brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County, Traub Lieberman attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo successfully obtained dismissal of a third-party complaint against their client, a fire-system protection company. In the underlying case, a fire sprinkler system within a commercial building leaked water into multiple tenant spaces, causing damage. The tenants’ insurers alleged that they each paid several hundred thousand dollars to cover their insureds’ claims. The insurers then filed complaints against the company which originally installed the sprinkler (the “Installer”), asserting that the company breached its duty of care. The Installer commenced a third-party action against the property owner and two fire-system protection companies—including Traub Lieberman’s client—who had separately conducted annual inspections of the sprinkler system over the years. The property owner and the two fire-system protection companies each asserted cross-claims against each other.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and
Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams Celebrates Chambers 2024 Rankings
June 21, 2024 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams practice groups and attorneys have been ranked in this year's Chambers USA 2024 Guide. Among the rankings, the firm has been recognized in the areas of Insurance and Real Estate: Finance in Pennsylvania, and Construction in Maryland.
Chambers recognized Tim Davis, Managing Partner of the Firm, and Nancy Frantz, Chair of the Real Estate Finance Group, both of whom were recognized for Real Estate: Finance. Chambers also ranked Steven Coury, Managing Partner of the Stamford, CT Office, for Real Estate, as well as Randy Maniloff, Partner, and Patricia Santelle, Chair Emeritus/Former Managing Partner and Chair of the Executive Committee, for Insurance. David Marion, Senior Counsel and Chambers’ Senior Statespeople (22-years ranked) was recognized for Litigation: General Commercial. Partner David Gilliss, Managing Partner of the Maryland office, was recognized for Construction and Amy Vulpio, Co-Chair of the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Practice, was recognized for Bankruptcy/Restructuring.
In one review of Tim Davis, a client described, "He's been around a long time; he's seen it all and has an instinctive feel for getting to the right outcome." Davis has been listed for the past four years and was described by Chambers as, “experienced in representing clients, including insurance companies, banks and investments funds, in a wide variety of real estate finance transactions.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences
December 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Second Circuit affirmed the finding of three occurrences in a highway accident after applying the unfortunate event test. Nat'l Liability & Fire Ins. Co. v. Itzkowitz, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16387 (2nd Cir. Sept. 15, 2015).
A dump box attached to a dump truck struck and damaged an overpass. The dump box then separated from the truck and landed in the right lane of the highway. Some thirty seconds to five minutes later, the Itzkowitz vehicle struck the detached dump box. Then, at some point between a few seconds and twenty minutes later, the Hershkowitz (second) vehicle struck the dump box.
The insurer for the dump truck owner, National, argued there was one accident, or at most two separate accidents, under the policy. The district court found there were three occurrences and National appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?
March 27, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed the Hensel Phelps case and the potential issues caused by both poorly drafted indemnity clauses and the lack of a statute of limitations applicable to the Commonwealth of Virginia and its agencies in 2017. New legislation (supported by various contractor groups including my friends at the AGC of Virginia) has been proposed for the 2019 General Assembly session that seeks to address at least part of this issue. While the indemnity provisions of your construction contracts can be addressed by careful drafting with the help of an experienced construction attorney, the proposed legislation (found in HB1667) seeks to address the statute of limitations issue.
The proposed legislation is described as follows:
Provides that no action may be brought by a public body on any construction contract, including construction management and design-build contracts, unless such action is brought within five years after substantial completion of the work on the project and that no action may be brought by a public body on a warranty or guarantee in such construction contract more than one year from the breach of that warranty, but in no event more than one year after the expiration of such warranty or guarantee. The bill also limits the time frame during which a public body, other than the Department of Transportation, may bring an action against a surety on a performance bond to within one year after substantial completion of the work on the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
