Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiAn issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation.
Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions.
Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement
January 03, 2022 —
Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & BonesteelOn January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery.
As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims
August 06, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case contains valuable analysis that has impact on whether a “successor” entity will be bound by a settlement agreement it was not a direct party to. This case contains arguments for contractors that can be raised in a number of different contexts if it is sued by a successor or related entity.
The same case discusses the difference between releasing a party for “known” claims without releasing the same party for “unknown” claims. This is an important distinction because unknown claims refer to latent defects so a release that only releases a party for known claims is not releasing that party for latent defects.
In MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1432d (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), an owner hired a contractor to construct a project. At completion, the owner transferred the project to an affiliated entity (collectively, the “Owner”). The contractor sued the Owner for unpaid work, the Owner claimed construction defects with the work, and a settlement was entered into that released the contractor for KNOWN claims. Thereafter, the Owner defaulted on the construction loan and agreed to convey the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to an entity created by the lender (the “Lender Entity”).
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
Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”
June 07, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Lafayete Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, No. 3:10cv336 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011), claimant homeowner Peerboom hired insured contractor Absolute to raise Peerboom’s house two feet to avoid future flooding. While Absolute was raising the house, it fell, resulting in physical injury to the home. Peerboom sued Absolute for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, seeking damages for the destruction of the home. Absolute’s CGL insurer Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018
May 08, 2023 —
The American Society of Civil EngineersLANSING, MI. — The Michigan Section of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the
2023 Report Card for Michigan's Infrastructure today, with 14 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of 'C-', an improvement over the 'D+' grade issued in the state's 2018 report card. That means Michigan's infrastructure systems are improving but are still in average condition and require attention. Michigan's grade is on par with the national average of 'C-' given in the
2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Civil engineers graded Michigan's aviation (C), bridges (D+), dams (C-), drinking water (D+), energy (D), inland waterways (C), public parks (C), rail (C), roads (D), schools (C-), solid waste (C+), stormwater (D), transit (C-), and wastewater (C). The report also included a chapter on the state's broadband infrastructure, which did not receive a grade due to insufficient available data.
Michigan policymakers have driven progress in the last five years to improve infrastructure assets by implementing short-term funding solutions to address decades of deferred maintenance, including surface transportation funding through the Rebuilding Michigan plan and improved water infrastructure systems through the MI Clean Water Plan. The state will also benefit from recent federal infrastructure investments included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). However, Michigan generally lacks sufficient long-term funding mechanisms to ensure all infrastructure sectors reach and sustain a state of good repair.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Research Shows Engineering Firms' Impact on Economy, Continued Optimism on Business Climate
October 28, 2024 —
The ACEC Research InstituteWASHINGTON – The ACEC Research Institute – the leading source of original research for the business of engineering – released the results of two important studies on the current and future state of the engineering industry, and its role in the overall U.S. economy.
The reports, the
2024 Economic Assessment of the Engineering & Design Services Industry and the
Engineering Business Sentiment Report for 2024 Q4, both point to continued optimism for the industry and its firms, though somewhat softened compared to previous quarters.
"This research shows the outsized impact the engineering industry has on the American economy," said ACEC Research Institute Chair Mike Carragher. "As the engineering industry's contributions grow year over year, the Institute's research helps firm executives position their businesses for a successful future."
All told, the industry added $656 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2023, supported well over five million jobs directly or indirectly, and contributed $92 billion to federal tax coffers, with an additional $44 billion in state and local taxes.
Overall, the report found that the engineering and design services industry has continued to build on its year-over-year post-COVID gains, growing 5.5% in 2023 to $436 billion, with much of that growth driven by infrastructure projects. Non-residential and non-building construction, flush with government funding through the IIJA and Inflation Reduction Act, remained on an upward trajectory.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mind The Appeal Or: A Lesson From Auto-Owners Insurance Co. V. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. On Timing Insurance Bad Faith And Declaratory Judgment Insurance Claims Following A Nunn-Agreement
August 06, 2019 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 30, 2019, Judge Richard Brooke Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado offered an insightful lesson to the parties in Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.[1] on the importance of ripeness in declaratory judgment insurance actions and bad faith counterclaims. The case arrived in front of Judge Jackson based on the following fact pattern.
A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association and all the other claims between all the parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand on Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. (“Nunn-Agreement”)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFPennsylvania may soon change how it adopts changes to its implementation of the Uniform Construction Code, but it’s not clear which method will be adopted, as the Pennsylvania House and Senate have competing bills. In the Senate bill (SB1023), the only change would be that any changes to the Uniform Building Code made by the International Code Council would automatically become part of the Pennsylvania building code, unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Pennsylvania UCC Review and Advisory Council. Under current Pennsylvania law, changes are adopted only with a two-thirds approval of the RAC.
The House bill (HB1209), separates the commercial code from the residential code. Under the House proposal, the RAC would reject changes to the commercial building code on a two-thirds vote, otherwise they would be adopted, but in the residential building code, changes would be rejected unless the RAC approved them by a two-thirds vote.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
