Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that construction defects could count as “occurrences” under a general liability policy. John Watkins, writing in Law360, notes that the ruling “has potentially broad implications for Georgia insureds.” He goes on to look at a later Georgia Supreme Court case, in which the court reaffirmed its decision in the 2011 Hathaway case.
In the 2013 case, Taylor Morrison Services Inc. v. HDI-Gerlins Ins., the court held that the property damage had to happen to something other than the work performed by the insured, and that a breaches of warranty without fraud claims may be covered. But Watkins notes that this points to “the continuing efforts of insurers to deny coverage for construction defects under CGL policies.”
This overruled some of the past decisions of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Watkins noted that the Eleventh Circuit seemed to wonder about the scope of Hathaway, but with Taylor Morrison, “the Georgia Supreme Court provided a clearly stated response.”
Looking at the implications, he gives an example in which if a window installer work causes a window to leak and the water intrusion damages a floor, the floor, but not the window would be covered. But he cautions, “the result may turn on the policy language and the particular facts.” In any case, he assures us that “coverage disputes regarding construction defects are sure to continue.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Construction Industry Lost Jobs (No Surprise) but it Gained Some Too (Surprise)
October 12, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe announcement this week by major airlines and then by Disney that they will be laying off tens of thousands of workers is just the latest in what we already know: The coronavirus pandemic has adversely impacted workers around the world. And the construction industry is no exception, although its impacts have been uneven, and in some cases surprisingly good.
According to a report by the Associated General Contractors of America, 39 states lost construction jobs between August 2019 and August 2020 while 31 states and the District of Columbia added construction jobs between July and August 2020.
California saw the largest decline in construction jobs between August 2019 and August 2020, down 52,000 jobs or 5.8%, followed by by New York (-46,000 jobs/-11.3%), Texas (-39,300 jobs/-5.0%), Massachusetts (-20,200 jobs/-12.4%) and Illinois (-17,200/-7.5%).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Florida Representative Wants to Change Statute of Repose
December 10, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFCurrently in Florida, the ten year clock for construction defect claims typically starts ticking after the final payment is made by the owner. However, WFSU reported, Representative Keith Perry wants to change it so that the completion of the construction triggers the statute of repose.
This change “could favor the construction industry, by shifting the power to start the clock from home owners to builders,” WFSU claimed. Representative Dwight Dudley worries about “what would happen if a contractor felt she was finished but the property owner didn’t agree.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex
September 24, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFDespite the assurances of their engineering firm, the township of Old Bridge, New Jersey has yet to release the performance bond to the construction of Plaza Grande, a condominium complex for residents over 55. One resident summarized the problem for the Suburban, a newspaper for towns in the area. “Our major concern is a sinkhole near Building 4 that has come back several times.”
D.R. Horton, the developer on the project, has dug out the sinkhole, then backfilled and compacted it. However , one member of the Old Bridge Township Council said that she noticed that the area was beginning to sink again. The council member, Mary Sohor, said that Horton “should’ve dug a little deeper and did a little more.”
D.R. Horton said that the issues do not affect the safety of the residents and attribute them to seasonal wear and tear.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients
February 18, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsTwo and a half years ago, on July 1, 2010, I opened my solo practice. At the time, I really had no insight into how big this change would be from a positive, customer service, perspective.
When I made the decision to go solo with my construction law practice, I knew I wanted to have flexibility to serve my client base of contractors and subcontractors in Virginia. I started some flat rate billing and had the ability to take cases that were below the dollar value of those that my old firm was willing to take. I also knew that I would be a master of my own destiny for better or worse (and it has been much more of the former than the latter).
What I did not realize is the impact that owning my own business would have on my perspective. I have always believed that, in most cases where construction disputes occur, mediation is a great option. However mediation only occurs with conflict. For any business, whether construction or otherwise, conflict creates expenses that were not likely to have been anticipated or built in to the budget. Litigation is not something that most businesses can, or should, build into their operating budgets.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases
July 06, 2020 —
Christian Singewald & Rochelle Gumapac - White and Williams LLPThe Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death.
In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and
Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims
May 08, 2023 —
Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation StrategistIn United States Automatic Sprinkler Corporation v. Erie Insurance Exchange, et al., No. 2SS-CT-264, 2023 Ind. LEXIS 105, the Supreme Court of Indiana (Supreme Court) reversed an order of the trial court that denied a motion for summary judgment filed by a sprinkler contractor. At issue was whether commercial tenants – one who contracted with the sprinkler contractor and others who did not – could recover for their respective property damages. The court held that under the contract’s subrogation waiver and agreement to insure, the contracting tenant waived its insurer’s rights to recover through subrogation. With respect to the non-contracting tenants, who sought to recover only property damages, the court held that the absence of contractual privity barred their recovery.
The case centered around a sprinkler system that malfunctioned and flooded the Sycamore Springs Office Complex (Landlord), causing extensive property damage to four commercial tenants. Surgery Center, one of the four tenants, requested permission from the Landlord to install a sprinkler system inside the building. Landlord agreed, in exchange for Surgery Center agreeing to be solely responsible for maintaining the sprinkler system. Surgery Center hired United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) to both install and conduct periodic inspection and testing of the sprinkler system. The contract terms outlined the scope of work to be performed by Automatic Sprinkler and the work was limited to the inspection and testing of the sprinkler system. Although repairs and emergency services were excluded from the contract, each could be performed upon the request and authorization of Surgery Center for an additional cost. The contract also contained certain risk allocation provisions including a waiver of subrogation and an agreement to insure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLPMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer
November 02, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer.
In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:
The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.
2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (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
