New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule
January 07, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Bennet Susser. Bennet is a founding member and shareholder of the New Jersey law firm, Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C. He has over 25 years’ experience in representing clients in all types of complex (and not so complex) litigation, including those involving construction actions. His Construction Law Practice Group has deep experience in the representation of property owners, developers, homeowners, design professionals, materials manufacturers, contractors and subcontractors in connection with construction of high-rise and other residential developments, condominium conversions of older rental properties, commercial property, mixed-use projects, and governmental buildings. Issues handled include: construction defects and deficiencies related to residential and commercial construction, including roofing defects, water intrusion, and structural life safety; construction delays; liens; hurricane recovery and rebuilding; insurance coverage disputes, including negotiation and resolution of insurance claims related to rebuilding; mold and mildew claims; and construction contracts and related documents, including loan documentation.
Construction litigation often seeks to foist the culpable conduct of contractors and subcontractors upon an owner or developer of commercial or residential real property. Sometimes, such conduct is warranted, especially when the owner/developer has a significant role in the manner in which the construction project work is to be conducted. However, there are times when the general contractor is the party calling the shots. Why should an owner/developer be charged with the conduct of other independent contractors over whom no control was exercised? Under certain circumstances, such party may be insulated from liability based on the “independent contractor rule.” Put another way, general contractors’ and subcontractors’ status as independent contractors do not impute liability to an owner/developer for their alleged wrongful conduct under the principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability.
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
The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia
July 24, 2023 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law GroupTHE CONDOMINIUM WARRANTY AGAINST STRUCTURAL DEFECTS
Condominium developers in Washington DC are required by statute to warrant against structural defects in residential condominiums. District of Columbia Condominium Act (“DC Condo Act”) § 42-1903.16(b). The warranty applies to both condominium common elements and each condominium unit. It requires a developer to repair structural defects, including any resulting damage to the condominium caused by a common element structural defect. DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16(a-1)(2). The statute creating this warranty is called the “Warranty Against Structural Defects,” contained in the DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16.
“Structural Defects” Defined
The warranty applies to “structural defects,” which are very broadly defined to include many types of construction defects. Structural defects are not just limited to defects in the supporting structure of the building. Rather, a structural defect can be any condition that:
“(A) Reduces the stability or safety of unit or common elements below standards commonly accepted in the real estate market,” or
(B) Restricts the normally intended use of all or part of the common elements of a unit and which requires repair, renovation, restoration, or replacement to serve the purpose for which it was intended.”
DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16(j)(6).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law GroupMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowielawgroup.com
Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses
April 13, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthTwo more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found
here and
here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies.
According to the complaints:
On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Florida Court Gives Parties Assigned a Subrogation Claim a Math Lesson
August 04, 2021 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistAlthough the focus of most subrogation cases is usually on proving liability, determining the appropriate measure of damages is just as important. Sometimes turning on a nuanced argument for recoverability, an adverse holding can significantly boost or reduce the total damages in a case. The Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District (Court) recently decided such an issue in a case involving subrogation, holding that the defendants owed much more than they originally anticipated.
In Five Solas v. Ram Realty Servs., No. 4D19-2211 2021, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 7546, the Court reviewed the appropriate setoff in damages that the defendants were entitled to when measuring the recoverable damages. The Court reversed the lower court’s holding, which held that the defendants were entitled to a setoff that limited the jury’s award to $104,481.75. Instead the Court held that the defendants were only entitled to a setoff equal to the excess recovery over replacement cost.
The case involves, among other things, property damage sustained by building owner Five Solas (Owner) and its lessee William Price, P.A. from a collapsed wall originating from the property of the defendants, Ram Realty Services, LLC and Sodix Fern, LLC d/b/a Alexander Lofts (collectively referred to as Defendants). Owner’s carrier, Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost), paid out its policy limit of $430,518.25 to Owner for damage to the building. Owner then pursued its claim against the tortfeasors for the remaining damages not paid by its carrier.[1] Foremost also pursued a subrogation claim, but settled its subrogation claim with Defendants, assigning its subrogation rights to Defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”
April 27, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Markel American Ins. Co. v. Lennar Corp., No. 14-10-00008-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 19, 2011), insured homebuilder Lennar filed suit against its insurer Markel seeking recovery of costs incurred by Lennar to repair water damage to homes resulting from defective EIFS siding. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Lennar and against Markel. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed. Applying Texas law, the court first held that Lennar failed to satisfy its burden of allocating damages between covered and uncovered. In a prior decision, the court had held that, while the costs incurred by Lennar for the repair of the resulting water damage
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurers' Motion to Determine Lack of Occurrence Fails
August 19, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court, interpreting Massachusetts law, found there were genuine issues of fact as to whether the insured's mixing of biodiesel with home heating fuel was an occurrence. United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Peterson's Oil Serv., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106980 (D. Mass. June 17, 2024).
Homeowners sued Peterson's Oil Service, alleging that Peterson sold them fuel for home heating which contained more that 5% biodiesel. The homeowners further alleged that fuel containing more than 5% biodiesel did not meet industry standards and caued damage to their home heating equipment. Peterson allegedly did not fully disclose the presence of biodiesel in their fuel, despite knowing the risk posed by high-biodiesel blended fuel.
The insurers, United States Fire Insurance Company and The North River Insurance Company, defended Peterson under a reservation of rights. United States Fire issued priomary policies with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 as a general aggregate limit. An endorsement titled "Limited Coverage - Failure to Supply" limited the amount covered for "property damage arising out of the failure of any insured to adequately supply gas, oil, water, electricty or steam" to $250,000. North River issued umbrella policies with additional coverage in the amount of $15,000,000 per occurrnce and in the aggregate if property damage was caused by an occurrence. The umbrella policies also contained a "Failure to Supply Exclusion" which excluded coverage for "property damage arising out of the failure of an insured to adequately supply gas, oil, water, electricty or steam."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Contractors’ Right to Sue in Washington Requires Registration
July 03, 2022 —
John Leary - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogSummary:
In Washington, contractors must be properly registered in order to pursue a legal action against a customer for breach of contract. Dobson v. Archibald, a February 2022 decision by the Washington Court of Appeals, reinforced how the governing statute – RCW 18.27.080 – does not simply create an affirmative defense but establishes a mandatory pleading prerequisite.1
Discussion:
In 2018, Archibald hired Dobson to refinish his hardwood floors for $3,200. Dobson was not a registered contractor. She had been referred to Archibald by acquaintances who were familiar with her construction and home repair work, including improvements Dobson had made to her own home. Archibald paid Dobson a $700 deposit before Dobson began her work. At the completion of the floor repair project, Archibald was unhappy with the appearance of the floors and informed Dobson that he would not pay the remaining $2,500.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Leary, Gordon & ReesMr. Leary may be contacted at
jleary@grsm.com
Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact
December 16, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe appellate court found that the insurer's quote created an issue of fact on whether loss caused by a computer hacker would be covered. Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 355 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2019).
The insureds, Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC ("LLC's") discovered that their bank accounts had been hacked and over $78,000 stolen. They submitted claims to their insurer, Cincinnati. Coverage was denied, and the LLCs filed suit. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati.
The "Forgery or Alternation" coverage applied to losses resulting directly from the "'forgery' or alteration of checks, drafts, promissory notes, or similar written promises, order or directions to pay a sum of money." "Forgery" was defined as "the signing of the name of another person or organization with the intent to deceive." The LLCs did not cite any evidence that the hacker "signed" anything, let alone that they signed "the name of another person or organization."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
