Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say
July 15, 2024 —
Jennifer A Dlouhy - BloombergActivists are petitioning the US government to formally classify extreme heat and wildfire smoke as major disasters, as soaring temperatures threaten to set records across much of the country.
In a petition filed with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, they seek to unlock new funding to help communities address such events before they strike, with money for air filters that strip out smoke and rooftop solar systems that can supply electricity when demand overwhelms power grids.
Climate change has made fatal heat waves more intense and frequent, while hotter, drier conditions stoke the risk of fires that can blanket the US in toxic smoke. An estimated 2,300 people in the US died from heat-related illness in 2023, the hottest year on record. And heavy smoke from wildfires in Canada last year traveled as far south as Georgia, prompting people to shelter inside and canceling flights in some of the largest US cities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer A Dlouhy, Bloomberg
ASCE Statement on Hurricane Milton and Environmental Threats
October 15, 2024 —
Feniosky Peña-Mora, P.E., President - American Society of Civil EngineersWASHINGTON, DC. – On the heels of the tragic damage caused by Hurricane Helene throughout the Southeast, Floridians were struck by another major hurricane, Milton, less than two weeks later. Our hearts go out to those impacted again by this storm through property damage, lack of water access, power outages, or worse, loss of life, all before getting a chance to recover from Helene. Civil engineers are dedicated to protecting the public with projects that can lessen the impacts of these storms, and we are eager to help communities rebuild as quickly as possible following events like Milton and Helene.
Although we do not yet know the full scope of destruction caused by Hurricane Milton, severe weather, including compound flooding events, are increasing regularly and pose a great risk to our safety and economic vitality. While so many eyes are fixated on hurricanes impacting the Southeast, wildfires are burning across several western states, including the Elk Fire in Wyoming, the largest wildfire the Bighorn National Forest has experienced in more than a century, now spanning over 75,000 acres as the region is experiencing unusually hot and dry weather and strong winds that are helping this fire to spread rapidly. The climate impacts we are accustomed to – wildfires in the West and hurricanes in the Southeast – are getting stronger, and now environmental challenges are occurring in areas we wouldn't suspect, such as Hurricane Helene striking mountain communities in Western North Carolina that have been labeled as "climate safe-havens," and Texas dealing with annual winter storms.
ASCE is a leader in codes and standards development and has created an
easy-to-understand toolkit for legislators and the public to learn the benefits of these up-to-date standards and determine when and how to adopt them, making our built environment more resilient to natural catastrophes. ASCE's flagship standard,
ASCE/SEI 7-22, recently underwent the most significant update to its
flooding chapter to ensure structures following this standard are prepared for 500-year flood events.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CSLB Begins Processing Applications for New B-2 License
June 21, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs we wrote about in our
2021 Construction Law Update, one of the new laws to take effect on January 1, 2021 was the enactment of
SB 1189 which created a new B-2 Residential Remodeling Contractor’s license. The new license is available to contractors working on existing homes with residential wood frame structures requiring at least three (3) unrelated trades or crafts under a single contract.
Beginning June 1, 2021, the Contractors State License Board began accepting applications for the B-2 Residential Remodeling Contractor’s license. According to a press release from the CSLB:
The B-2 classification provides a pathway to licensure for many unlicensed people who are currently working on remodeling and small home improvement projects that don’t qualify for a B-General Building License because the contracted work does not include framing or rough carpentry. Consumers employing a licensed contractor have reduced liability and greater consumer protection. Licensees benefit from licensure as they have opportunities to lawfully advertise, and compete on a level playing field for jobs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal
June 21, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insured was entitled to a defense against claims for its alleged willful removal of coal from third parties' land. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bizzack Constr, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70285 (W.D. Va. April 27, 2017).
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) contracted with Bizzack to perform work in widening U.S. Route 460. VDOT notified coal owners that it had been "necessary to remove certain coal" from their land during the construction of Route 460. Some of the coal owners sued Bizzack, seeking compensation for lost coal. They alleged Bizzack had illegally removed and sold their coal, and "damaged the remaining coal in place on the property."
Bizzack sought coverage from Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Bizzack. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. Liberty Mutual argued: (1) there was no "occurrence"; (2) exclusion j (5) applied; and (3) the "expected or intended injury" exclusion applied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules
March 23, 2020 —
Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordActing Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf on Feb. 20 waived federal contracting rules to expedite construction of the U.S-Mexico border wall in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, citing legal authority under several U.S. laws, some dating back to the 1990s, to deal with what he claimed is "an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads ... to prevent unlawful entries."
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Addresses Anti-concurrent Cause Language in Property Policy
February 04, 2025 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Surchi1, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227796 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed a carrier’s obligation to cover costs associated with remediating water-related damage to insured property. In July 2022, the insured property experienced water-related damage and resulting repair costs. A claim was submitted for coverage under a property policy issued by Travelers. Travelers denied the claim and the insured initiated an action against Travelers seeking coverage. During the litigation Travelers maintained its position that it was not obligated to cover the water-related damage, because (1) under the policy, Travelers is not obligated to cover damage caused by surface water, even if surface water contributed only in part to the damage, and (2) the pleadings irrefutably establish that surface water contributed, at least in part, to the property damage. The insured took the contrary view arguing that Travelers was obligated to cover water-related damage (1) because the damage was the result of a water or sewage backing up or overflowing from sewers, and (2) this obligation remains, even if surface water contributed in part to the damage.
The court began with a review of the relevant policy language. Under the policy, Travelers "will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by ... surface water." At the same time, under a change endorsement to the policy, Travelers agreed to cover "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the described premises caused by or resulting from water or sewage that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain, or sump." In light of this language, the parties dispute centered on whether Travelers is obligated to cover damages caused concurrently by surface water (an excluded peril) and by water or sewage that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain, or sump (a covered peril).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues
January 21, 2019 —
Paul Briganti - White and WilliamsOn November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018).
First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Briganti, White and WilliamsMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
