Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation
March 19, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSeven suspects were cited for contracting without a license after being caught by the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), reported CBS local news, and eighty-five people may face criminal charges. The undercover sting operations occurred over a two day period in Rancho Mirage, California. A hearing is scheduled for June 3rd at Riverside County Superior Court.
CSLB Registrar Cindi A. Christenson told CBS, “Several of the suspects we targeted turned out to be repeat offenders and individuals with a criminal history and drug violations. If you knew their backgrounds, you'd never allow them near your home or family."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders
May 11, 2020 —
Alan Packer & James Hultz - Newmeyer DillionFor years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims.
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and
James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580
May 01, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Ins. Co. of St. of PA v. Amer. Safety Indemnity Co. (No. B283684, filed 3/1/19) (“ICSOP”), a California appeals court rejected one insurer’s efforts to limit the scope of another insurer’s direct action as a judgment creditor under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2).
In ICSOP, homeowners filed a claim in arbitration against their general contractor alleging damages from subsidence. While the arbitration was pending, the general contractor filed suit against the grading subcontractor seeking indemnity and contribution. The complaint attached the homeowners’ complaint in arbitration pleading damages of $2.3 million, and alleged that the subcontractors had a duty to indemnify for those damages. The arbitrator awarded the homeowners $1.1 million.
The general contractor was insured by plaintiff ICSOP, which paid the arbitration award. A default judgment was entered against the grading subcontractor for $1.5 million, that included both the arbitration award plus $356,340 for the general contractor’s attorney’s fees. American Safety insured the grading subcontractor but refused to indemnify ICSOP. ICSOP then sued American Safety on the default judgment, pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580(b). The trial court granted summary judgment for ICSOP and the appeals court affirmed.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Best Lawyers® Recognizes 49 White and Williams Attorneys
September 16, 2024 —
White and Williams LLPThirty-eight White and Williams lawyers were recognized in Best Lawyers in America® 2025. Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers® employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services.
In addition, eleven lawyers were recognized as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States.
The firm is also pleased to announce Best Lawyers® has recognized three attorneys as "Lawyer of the Year” including: Chuck Eppolito, Litigation - Health Care, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on medical malpractice defense as well as other insurance-related defense; William D. Kennedy, Litigation – Insurance, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on complex claims of injury and damage arising in both the professional and general liability contexts; and, Michael O. Kassak, Litigation – Insurance, Cherry Hill, who focuses his practice on large complex commercial matters including insurance coverage and healthcare disputes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship
April 05, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLPOn March 17, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision in Estate Chimney & Fireplace v. IFG Companies & Burlington Insurance Company, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50360 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2021), finding that an insurance carrier had no duty to defend its insured where the allegations in the underlying litigation involved claims of faulty workmanship.
Estates Chimney & Fireplace, LLC (Estates Chimney) had performed inspections and replaced chase covers for a number of chimneys in a condominium complex. Chase covers are pieces of metal, which are placed over chimneys in order to keep out environmental elements. Several condominium owners sued Estates Chimney, alleging that Estates Chimney had improperly installed, then improperly replaced, their chimney caps, which caused their chimneys to cease working properly. As a result, the underlying plaintiffs allegedly incurred costs to repair or replace the chimney caps and chimneys.
Estates Chimney sought coverage from its carrier, who denied coverage based upon its determination that the claims in the underlying lawsuits arose out of faulty workmanship, which did not result in damage to the property of a third party. Estates Chimney filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Eastern District ruled in favor of the carrier.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements
June 27, 2022 —
Gerard J. Onorata - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.During a construction project, it is not uncommon for disputes to arise between a general contractor and a subcontractor. Frequently, these disputes involve claims for extra work and delay damages that can be attributed to the owner of the project due to deficient design or unforeseen conditions. When these occasions arise, the parties can often resolve these claims without the need for litigation or arbitration by entering into a “liquidating agreement.”
What is a Liquidating Agreement?
Because there is no direct contractual relationship between a subcontractor and an owner, there does not exist a legal basis for a subcontractor to assert a breach of contract claim against a project owner. In legal parlance, this is known as “lack of contractual privity.” A liquidating agreement bridges this contractual gap and allows a subcontractor to pass its claim against the owner through the general contractor. Essentially, with a liquidating agreement, the general contractor acts as a conduit for passing through the subcontractor’s claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Onorata may be contacted at
gonorata@pecklaw.com
Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action
October 04, 2021 —
Jatin Patel - Newmeyer DillionIt has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer.
In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM.
PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jatin Patel, Newmeyer DillionMr. Patel may be contacted at
jatin.patel@ndlf.com
Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process
December 27, 2021 —
Sarah B. Biser - ConsensusDocsDispute Review Boards: Overview
Problems, disagreements and claims arise in most large and complex construction projects regardless of the project delivery method. These disputes can and do delay and significantly increase the cost of the project. Dispute Review Boards, also known as Dispute Resolution Board, Dispute Board, Dispute Avoidance Board or DRB, are often found in large construction projects to assist the parties to minimize, resolve or avoid disputes and mitigate adverse impacts to projects. To date, over $270 billion worth of construction projects have used the dispute review board process to avoid numerous disputes and achieve significant savings.[1]
Unlike mediation and arbitration, a DRB is convened at the very beginning of the project and conducts regular meetings and visits at the project site throughout, allowing the DRB to discuss, observe and monitor construction, progress and potential disputes. At these meetings, DRB members become familiar with many of the facts and acquaint themselves with the job site personnel. If a dispute is submitted to them, the panelists have a great deal of knowledge about the circumstances of the problem to aid them in reaching their recommendations or conclusions. DRBs also encourage open and honest communications among or between the parties during the project, which in turn, encourages avoidance or resolution of disputes before they become formal claims. In short, the DRP process involves real-time discussion of the dispute with highly qualified people who know the particular project from day one and can provide recommendations on how to resolve disputes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLPMs. Biser may be contacted at
sbiser@foxrothschild.com
