Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses Waiver and Estoppel in Context of Suit Limitation Provision in Property Policy
February 05, 2024 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Naperville Hotel Partners, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2023 IL App (3d) 220440-U the Illinois Third District Court of Appeals addressed whether failure to include reference to a limitations provision in reservation of rights correspondence to an insured can be deemed a waiver of the provision or otherwise estop the insurer from relying on the provision.
The claim involved water damage sustained at the Insured’s motel as a result of numerous rain events that occurred between 2015 and 2020. Liberty Mutual issued an insurance policy that covered several buildings including the subject hotel. The policy required that any legal action based on the coverage had to be brought "within two (2) years after the date on which the physical damage occurred, extended by the number of days between the date you submitted the statement of loss to us and the date we deny the claim in whole or in part."
Plaintiffs filed their claim with Liberty Mutual in May 2019. In June of 2019 Liberty Mutual sent a reservation of rights letter to the Insured which requested more information and listed the "immediate written notice of loss" provision as a potential basis for excluding coverage but did not list the two-year time-limitation on legal action. Liberty Mutual also did not mention the provision in subsequent communications with the Insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Hillsboro, Oregon School District has settled a lawsuit with Mahlum Architects of Portland, one of the four companies sued by the school district over problems with a soccer field. The total lawsuit was for $1.7 million. The architects have settled for $25,000. The manufacturer of Astro Turf also settled with the school for an as-yet undisclosed amount.
What the school describes as the “primary defendants” have yet to settle. The school had to close the soccer field when drainage problems lead to large holes in the playing field.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits
September 03, 2014 —
David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – BloombergHalliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well.
The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide.
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists
David Wethe,
Margaret Cronin Fisk and
Laurel Calkins
Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Registered Agent Advantage
October 22, 2014 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsIn the Commonwealth of Virginia, as in most states, all corporations, LLC’s or other corporate style entities are required to have a registered agent if they are to do business in the Commonwealth. The reasons for the requirement are many, but the main ones are taxation, service of process and communication from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (the “SCC”). Without such a registered agent, many rights, for example the right to prosecute a lawsuit, are not available to the unregistered entity.
As a construction company that I hope is incorporated (if you aren’t you should do take this step), your registered agent can be an officer of the company, a company that meets the requirements of the SCC that allow it to act as a registered agent, or an attorney licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is this last category that you should carefully consider.
Why do I think that a Virginia construction attorney is the best candidate for use as the registered agent of either a local or out of state contractor or subcontractor? As you might imagine from the title of this post, I’ll let you know.
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
Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues
June 01, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s like the rematch between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed.
In the right corner we have the California Taxpayers Action Network. In the left corner, Taber Construction, Inc. The title in contention: Construction of California’s Lease-Leaseback Program and, specifically, whether a construction firm can provide both pre-construction services as well as perform construction or, whether doing so, would be an impermissible conflict of interest under the Lease-Leaseback Law.
In their first appellate court match, California Taxpayers Action Network argued that a lease-leaseback arrangement between Taber Construction and the Mount Diablo Unified School District, whereby the District agreed to lease the site to Taber Construction one dollar (which is permissible) and to pay Taber a “guaranteed project cost” of $14,743,395 comprised of “tenant improvement payments” totaling $13,269,057 prior to the District taking delivery of the project (which was the issue in dispute) and six “lease payment amount[s]” of $345,723 plus interest paid in 30-day intervals, violated the Lease-Leaseback Law because the bulk of the payments by the District to Taber Construction occurred during construction rather than during the lease-term which could only “truly” occur after the District took delivery of the project. The 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Taber Construction, and in doing so created an appellate court split with the 5th District Court of Appeal’s decision in Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, 237 Cal.App.4th 261 (2015), which held that contractor who received all payments prior to turnover of the project to the district violated the Lease-Leaseback Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.
March 01, 2017 —
Masaki J. Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCThe new Part 107 FAA Rules took effect on Monday, August 29, 2016. Unlike the previous requirements for flying a drone commercially, the new rules are much more simplistic and permissive of a broad amount of commercial drone usage.
The following is the basic knowledge you need to legally use a drone on your future projects. To fly a drone commercially, there are now four major requirements:
- You must be at least sixteen years old;
- You must register your drone online;
- You must pass an aviation knowledge test administered at an FAA-approved testing center; and
- You must pass review by the Transportation Security Administration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Yamada may be contacted at
myamada@ac-lawyers.com
Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports
August 04, 2021 —
Joshua A. Morehouse - ConsensusDocsWhen bidding a project, subsurface or latent site conditions that are not immediately apparent can massively impact the costs of performance to general contractors. Were contractors required to bid on projects without any information on pre-existing conditions, they would need either to be assured that any additional costs would be reimbursed by the owner, or to include significant contingencies for subsurface conditions in their bids. For owners, these options result in either increased risk or increased cost—neither of which is particularly palatable. Owners therefore implement several contractual tools to minimize these risks and costs.
One of these tools is providing bidders with a report on latent conditions, often called a “geotechnical data report” or “GDR”, but otherwise shifting as much of the subsurface-related risk as possible to the contractor. In theory, these reports permit contractors to appropriately adjust their contingencies for latent conditions, thus saving owners money. However, several independent and thorny issues arise where site reports provided by the owner are either inconsistent with or silent on the actual conditions of a project site. Hence owners often include disclaimers with these reports, such as noting that the report is for “informational purposes only” or that the report is “not part of the contract documents."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at
jmorehouse@pecklaw.com
Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage
July 30, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor.
McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control.
In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
