Insurer Must Cover Portions of Arbitration Award
October 14, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that there was coverage in a construction defect case for portions of an arbitration award. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Century Sur. Co., 2019 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 116093 (S.D. Texas July 12, 2019).
Descon Construction contracted with the City of Edinburg, Texas, to build a library. Descon subcontracted with McAllen Steel Erectors to install the library metal roof. The roof began to leak within two months of occupancy. The leaks continued for seven years.
Edinburg sued Descon. The matter was arbitrated. The arbitration panel found that the library roof was defective, the exterior stucco system was defectively installed and certain work, including fire-caulking, had not been performed. The panel concluded that Descon was liable for breach of contract and breach of warranty. The panel determined that Edinburg was entitled to replacement of the existing roof. Further, McAllen was found to have breached its subcontract with Descon by defectively installing the roof, entitling Descon to recover $762,537 from McAllen.
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
Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Supreme Court has left the legislature’s new, expanded definition of “occurrence” in place, declining to declare it unconstitutional. South Carolina included faulty workmanship as an occurrence in response to a Supreme Court decision, which the court later reversed. One of the parties in that earlier decision, Harleysville Insurance, challenged the new law, claiming that the legislature didn’t have the power to pass a law to overturn a court ruling. The court did not concur.
However, the court did determine that the law was not retroactive and covered only claims filed after the law became effective in May 2011. The Chief Justice of South Carolina noted that “insurance coverage for construction liability lacks clarity, particularly with respect to whether construction defects constitute ‘occurrences’ under construction general insurance policies.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delays Caused When Government (Owner) Pushes Contractor’s Work Into Rainy / Adverse Weather Season
January 13, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are a number of horizontal construction projects where a contractor’s sequence of work and schedule is predicated on avoiding the rainy season (or certain force majeure events). The reason is that the rainy season will result in delays due to the inability to work (and work efficiently) during the adverse weather (including flooding caused by the weather). If the work is pushed into the rainy season, is such delay compensable if the government (or owner) delayed the project that pushed work out into the rainy season? It very well can be.
For example, in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 2019 WL 4594233 (Fed. Cl. 2019), a contractor was hired by the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a flood control project for a channel in Arizona. Due to delays, including those caused by the government, the project was pushed into the monsoon season, which caused additional delays largely due to flooding caused by the heavy rain. One issue was whether such delays were compensable to the contractor – the government raised the argument that the contractor assumed the risk of potential flooding from the rainy season. The Court found this argument unconvincing:
[The contractor’s] initial construction schedule planned for a completion of the channel invert work, a necessary step in protecting the site from flooding, to be completed by late June 2008…[M]any issues arose in the project’s early stages that led to cumulative substantial delay, including those caused by the government’s failure….The government cannot now claim that [the contractor] assumed the risk of flooding from monsoon season when the government was largely responsible for [the contractor’s] inability to complete the project prior to the beginning of the monsoon season. Simply put, the government cannot escape liability for flood damages when the government is responsible for causing the contractor to be working during the flood-prone season.
Meridian Engineering, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted)
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
Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim
September 07, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesSince I wrote my ebook on the application of federal Miller Act payment bonds, I have not discussed a case applying the Miller Act. Until now!
Below is a case that reinforces two important points applicable to Miller Act payment bond claims. First, the case reinforces what a claimant needs to prove to establish a Miller Act payment bond claim. Very important. Second, the case reinforces that a subcontractor is going to be governed by its subcontract. This means that those provisions regarding payment and scope of work are very important. Not that you did not already know this, but ignoring contractual requirements will not fly.
In U.S.A. f/u/b/o Netplanner Systems, Inc. v. GSC Construction, Inc., 2017 WL 3594261 (E.D.N.C. 2017), a prime contractor hired a subcontractor to run cabling and wiring at Fort Bragg. The subcontractor claimed it was owed a balance and filed a lawsuit against the general contractor the Miller Act payment bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context
January 04, 2021 —
Kathleen A. Nelson & Jonathan R. Missen - Lewis BrisboisThe law in the State of Washington, albeit clear on issues regarding first party claimants, was recently challenged in the matter of Eye Associates Northwest, P.C. v. Sedgwick et. al. However, despite this challenge of first impression, the court limited the application of the term “first party claimant” (a term of art akin to “insured”) based upon the wording of a loss payee clause, as well as taking into consideration and harmonizing the wording of the leases, other provisions in the policy regarding tenant improvements, and the simple fact that Eye Associates was not named in the policy whatsoever.
In Eye Associates, the plaintiff leased office space in a high-rise medical office building, insured by three separate insurance companies. A water loss caused damage to the plaintiff’s leased space, and the plaintiff brought suit against the owner of the building, its insurers, the property manager, a third-party administrator (TPA), and two individual adjusters assigned to inspect and adjust the water loss claim.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen A. Nelson, Lewis Brisbois and
Jonathan R. Missen, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Missen may be contacted at Jonathan.Missen@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?
June 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDespite a “no cracks” welding code and contract provision for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, in 2008 Caltrans proceeded with the project despite welding cracks created by the Chinese firm hired to build the roadway, according to the Sacramento Bee. By the time the cracks had been discovered, the costs were at $6.5 billion and climbing, and fixing the cracks would be time-consuming and expensive.
However, there is some dispute as to rather the welding “cracks represent a hazard to the traveling public.”
“Examine history,” Brian Maroney, Caltrans’ chief engineer for the bridge, said in a recent interview by the Sacramento Bee. “… Caltrans reviewed major quakes around the globe and never found a case in which weld cracks caused bridge-roadway fractures.”
However, the Sacramento Bee reported that there was a case where welding cracks led to fractures. For instance, after the southern California earthquake in 1994 centered in Northridge, the Santa Clara River Bridge “suffered several fractures in steel girders. The breaks were traced to tiny cracks in welds, likely present before the quake, and worsened by vibrations of heavy trucks passing overhead. When the quake struck, the girders fractured.”
The Santa Clara bridge did not collapse. Sacramento Bee claimed it remained standing because the I-beam-shaped girders were “not fracture-critical.” However, the Bay Bridge’s “roadway consists of box-girder segments welded together. In effect, they create one contiguous, fracture-critical girder,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, UC Berkeley engineering professor told the Sacramento Bee. “If welds crack and grow rapidly during a large quake, the entire roadway could fail.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine
September 26, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Texas jury has found that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the property of Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) caused “physical loss or damage” and resulting economic loss, triggering coverage under BCM’s commercial property insurance program. The jury awarded BCM over $48 million following a three-day trial; the award consisted of $42.8 million in business interruption, $3.3 million in extra expense, and $2.3 million in damage to research projects.
The verdict came after the court denied the insurers’ pre-trial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the insurers’ contention that a virus cannot—as a matter of law—cause physical loss or damage to property. In denying the motion, the court held that whether the presence of the virus causes physical loss or damage presents a question of fact for the jury to resolve; a copy of the order rejecting the insurers’ summary judgment argument can be found
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert
January 28, 2019 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistIn Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test.
As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and WilliamsMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
