Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s
January 04, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner.
The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity.
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
Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued
March 28, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFaced with an issue of first impression in California, the Court of Appeals held that a broker was not liable for failing to reveal the insurer's insolvency occurring after issuance of the policy. Pacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Ins. Serv. West, Inc., 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 232 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2012).
The developer for a construction project in downtown San Diego retained Aon as its broker to secure coverage. Aon procured a general liability policy for the project with Legion Indemnity Company. Legion was solvent when it issued the policy.
The developer hired Pacific Rim (“PacRim”) as one of several subcontractors on the project. The parties entered into a contract in which the developer agreed to provide PacRim with liability insurance through an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”). Aon was not a party to the contract and PacRim was never its client. PacRim, however, enrolled in the OCIP by contacting Aon and providing all necessary paperwork.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congress Passes, President Signs Sweeping Energy Measure In Spend Bill
January 04, 2021 —
Corinne Grinapol, Tom Ichniowski, & Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-RecordThe end-of-the-year spending
package passed by Congress on Dec. 21 includes the first major energy legislation to be enacted in more than a decade.
Reprinted courtesy of
Corinne Grinapol, ENR,
Tom Ichniowski, ENR and
Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
IRMI Expert Commentary: Managing Insurance Coverage from Multiple Insurers
May 11, 2020 —
Gregory D. Podolak, Philip B. Wilusz & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & VitaWhat do you do when less is more? In many loss scenarios, triggering coverage under multiple policies can be a critical and effective strategy. However, doing so has the potential to complicate the insurance recovery proceedings immensely, and possibly even undermine those overall goals. The relation of "other insurance" clauses, allocation schemes, and the practical impacts of interacting with multiple insurers can all leave the insured with some difficult questions.
We present here several scenarios that illustrate how these concerns can arise and how they should be addressed to avoid running into what The Notorious B.I.G.—had he been a coverage lawyer—would have called "The More Coverage We Come Across, the More Problems We See."
The "Other Insurance" Issue
This first scenario is where a single-year loss implicates multiple lines of coverage. Consider the following: a general contractor (GC) faces a property damage liability claim from an owner. As a prudent insured, the GC notifies its customary first line of defense, its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer, to provide a defense. As knowledge of the claim evolves, it appears an element of pollution may be involved. The GC also places its pollution insurer on notice. Later, it's determined that the GC may have a professional liability exposure, so it tenders a claim to its professional liability insurer. Now assume that each insurer accepts coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita attorneys
Gregory D. Podolak,
Philip B. Wilusz and
Ashley McWilliams
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at amw@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)
April 11, 2018 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaInsurance– everyone needs it; everyone would just as soon not have to deal with it. I get it, I do. Attorneys, Insurance Agents– no one likes spending time with those folk! Good news though. The changes to the A201 mean that you may end up spending less time with both!
The most important change to the Insurance requirements of the AIA contract is that most of it has moved to a new Exhibit. Why is this important?
Instead of having to send the entire contract to your agent or broker, you can now send them only the section that they really need to review for compliance. This also means that if insurance policies change (as they surely will), the entire contract document does not need to be re-written– the Exhibit can be updated accordingly, leaving the rest of the A201 alone. Nice, right? This change was made to streamline insurance review and provide for that flexibility of the changing insurance market.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion
July 01, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit held that a claim for advertising injury was properly denied under the prior publication exclusion. Street Surfing, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10737 (9th Cir. June 10, 2014).
Street Surfing began selling a two-wheeled, inline skateboard called the "Wave" in December 2004. By 2007, Street Surfing also sold and advertised accessories for the Wave, such as "Lime Green Street Surfing Wheels for The Wave," and the "New Ultimate Street Surfer Wheel Set."
Rhyn Noll, who owned the registered trademark "Streetsurfer," sued Street Surfing in June 2008, claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition and unfair trade practices. Street Surfing had known that Noll owned the "Streetsurfer" trademark since early 2005. In September 2008, Street Surfing submitted a claim for coverage to Great American and tendered Noll's complaint.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage
May 17, 2021 —
Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction ExecutiveDirect damage to property under construction caused by faulty or defective work or defective materials has been a coverage issue for decades. Two specific policies, the Commercial General Liability for the contractors building the structure and the Builders Risk Policy on the project both are sources of potential coverage.
A CGL policy protects the named insured (the contractor in this case) from third party liability arising out of the insured’s operations that results in either bodily injury or property damage. Damage to property caused by poor workmanship or defective materials would qualify as property damage. To understand how the CGL policy might respond to claims such as these, it is necessary to evaluate several exclusions in the CGL policy.
CGL policies cover “property damage,” defined as physical injury to tangible property, including loss of use of such property, and loss of use of tangible property that has not been physically injured.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
