Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act
October 15, 2014 —
Stephen J. Milewski – White and Williams LLPAs a Delaware lawyer, one of the most frequently asked questions I get from insurance clients is: “Do all personal injury settlements with minors need to be approved by the Court?” The answer is and always has been yes. This is true regardless of the amount of the settlement. There have, however, been some recent changes under Delaware law which may help facilitate the process and even reduce the costs associated with settling small tort cases with minors. Traditionally, when settling cases with a minor, a Petition would be filed with the trial court (Superior Court) and then a hearing would be scheduled for the parties to present to the Court the terms of the settlement, explain the plaintiff’s injuries and itemize the fee breakdown. This would be the settlement approval process. After that, the plaintiff would be required to have a guardian appointed over the proceeds, which had to be approved by Chancery Court (Delaware’s Court of Equity). The purpose of this process was to ensure the settlement money going to the minor was managed properly; the net proceeds were generally placed into a bank account not to be used by the guardian or the minor until the minor reached the age of majority. To both the plaintiff, and the insurance carrier paying out the settlement, this process was burdensome and added disproportionate costs to small settlements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Milewski, White and Williams LLPMr. Milewski may be contacted at
milewskis@whiteandwiliams.com
Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty
March 26, 2014 —
David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith-Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement.
In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
David W. Evans,
Krsto Mijanovic, and
Gregory M. Smith
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires
November 21, 2017 —
Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOriginally published by CDJ on February 16, 2017
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages.
In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roof Mounted Solar Panels: Lower Your Risk of Fire
September 25, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsAs the federal government, individual states, businesses and consumers take steps to address climate change, the use of renewable energy – including roof-mounted solar panels – has steadily increased. Over the past decade, the use of solar energy solutions has grown by 33% annually. This is driven by tax-based incentives for clean energy, combined with installation costs that are down more than 50% from 10 years ago.1
As more companies execute climate-focused goals to limit greenhouse emissions, reduce their carbon-footprint and lower energy costs, the use of solar power for commercial buildings is likely to increase. Currently, it's estimated that only 3.5% of commercial buildings have rooftop solar panels, but 70% are potential targets for solar.2
We know the use of solar power can have positive impacts on the environment and generate long-term energy cost savings. However, there are several considerations and potential risks that commercial property owners and facilities managers should consider prior to investing in solar, says Tracey Greene, underwriting director for Middle and Large Commercial Real Estate at The Hartford.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas
January 18, 2021 —
Doug Puppel - Engineering News-RecordDevelopers of the $1.66-billion MSG Sphere in Las Vegas have removed AECOM as general contractor on the project and will bring construction management in-house for the 875,000-sq-ft entertainment venue, according to a Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. statement released Dec. 17.
Reprinted courtesy of
Doug Puppel, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss
November 10, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurers were granted summary judgment on three issues regarding Amtrak's claim for damages caused by Hurricane Sandy. Amtrak v. Aspen Sec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (2nd Cir. Aug. 31, 2016).
Hurricane Sandy caused flooding which damaged two of Amtrak's tunnels under the East and Hudson Rivers. Seawater from the flooding caused extensive damage to equipment in the tunnels. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers on the following issues: (1) the damage caused by an inundation of water in the tunnels was subject to the policies' $125 million flood sublimit; and (2) the corrosion of equipment after Amtrak pumped out the seawater was not an "ensuing loss" and therefore was also subject to the flood sublimit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!
August 16, 2021 —
Wilke Fleury LLPWilke Fleury congratulates attorneys David Frenznick, Adriana Cervantes and Dan Egan on their inclusion in the 2021 Edition of Best Lawyers in America!
Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 108,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and they have received over 13 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. For the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©, 9.4 million votes were analyzed.
Daniel L. Egan – Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2021
- First year recognized in Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law: 2021
David A. Frenznick – Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2016
- First year recognized in Litigation – Real Estate: 2016
Adriana C. Cervantes – Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch*
- First year recognized in Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: 2021
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury LLP
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
