State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions
June 21, 2017 —
Hannah E. Austin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. Chaber, the West Virginia Supreme Court recently
held that an insurance policy’s earth movement exclusion was unambiguous and applied to both manmade
and natural earth movement. The Court also found that a narrow “ensuing loss” exception to the exclusion
that provided coverage for glass breakage resulting from earth movement could not be extended to cover the
entire loss.
The Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (Erie) insured five commercial buildings owned by
Dmitri and Mary Chaber. One of the properties was damaged by a landslide, and the Chabers filed a claim
with Erie. Erie asserted that the loss was excluded from coverage because the policy excluded coverage for
losses caused by earth movement, which was defined to include earthquakes, landslides, subsidence of
manmade mines, and earth sinking (aside from sinkhole collapse), rising or shifting. The exclusion stated
that it applied “regardless of whether any of the above . . . is caused by an act of nature or is otherwise
caused,” and also contained an anti-concurrent causation clause. However, there was an exception for glass
breakage caused by earth movement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hannah E. Austin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Austin may be contacted at
hea@sdvlaw.com
Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.
After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.
KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.
Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”
As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.
While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”
ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”
In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amazon Can be Held Strictly Liable as a Product Seller in New Jersey
August 07, 2022 —
Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation StrategistOn June 29, 2022, in N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp. a/s/o Angela Sigismondi v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115826 (Sigismondi), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a “seller” under New Jersey’s product liability statute and can thus face strict liability for damages caused by products sold on its platform. Although the analysis is state-specific, Sigismondi may serve as an important decision for allowing product defect claims to proceed against Amazon when so often the third-party vendor that lists the product is unlocatable, insolvent, or not subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts.
In recent years, Amazon has been fighting product liability claims across the country. Amazon argues it is not a “seller” under states’ product liability laws but is merely an online marketplace that facilitates the sale of products by third-party vendors. What constitutes a “seller” in a particular state must be evaluated state-by-state, but various courts have accepted Amazon’s argument that it is not a “seller.” These decisions are based on Amazon’s level of control in the product sale and often focus on a finding that Amazon did not convey possession of the product or transfer its title.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and WilliamsMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy
August 29, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision that the insured Association of Apartment Owners was entitled to coverage for the attorneys' fees incurred [prior post here].Assoc'n of Apartment Owners of the Moorings, Inc. v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20251 (9th Cir. July 20, 2018).
The District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment to the AOAO, requiring Dongbu to indemnify the AOAO for an award of attorney's fees that an arbitrator ordered the AOAO to pay to the underlying claimants. The claimants prevailed on a claim that their condominium unit incurred water damage due to a common roof leak. Dongbu's policy required it to reimburse those sums that the AOAO was legally obligated to pay as damages because of property damage. The AOAO became legally obligated to pay the claimants' fees once the state court confirmed the arbitration award. Further, the water damage to the home constituted covered property damage under the policy.
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
Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
July 11, 2018 —
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at
jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com
In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim
March 30, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings I have discussed the interaction of the so called “economic loss rule,” construction contracts and tort claims on numerous occasions. The general rule is that where a duty to perform in a certain way arises from the contract, the Virginia courts will not allow a plaintiff to turn a contract claim into a tort claim such as fraud or negligence.
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
Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy
September 24, 2014 —
Jeanna Smialek – BloombergHousing starts slumped in August from the highest level in almost seven years, reflecting a setback in multifamily projects that are at the forefront of the rebound in U.S. real estate.
Beginning home construction fell 14.4 percent, the most since April 2013, to a 956,000 annualized rate following July’s revised 1.12 million pace that was the strongest since November 2007, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Work on apartments and condominiums, which tends to be volatile, dropped 31.7 percent after jumping 44.9 percent in July.
As more Americans decide that homeownership isn’t for them because wage growth is slow and qualifying for mortgages remains difficult, builders have focused on putting up more rental units, which means the industry will see bigger swings month to month. The average number of multifamily units started over the past 12 months was the most since 2006.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeanna Smialek, BloombergMs. Smialek may be contacted at
jsmialek1@bloomberg.net
Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment
December 04, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer was successful on summary judgment in establishing it correctly denied coverage for collapse, but its motion was denied regarding the insureds' bad faith claim. Jones v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153102 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 7, 2018).
The insureds' retaining wall collapsed. They tendered to State Farm under their homeowners policy. An engineer retained by State Farm determined that the wall buckled due to "excessive lateral earth pressure from retained soils behind the wall." The parties agreed that the soil, saturated by water from frequent rain, grew too heavy for the retaining wall to bear, causing the collapse.
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
