When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured
July 15, 2019 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Mason County v. Stove Builder Int’l, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46993 (E.D. Ky.), the United States District Court for the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Kentucky, by adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations, see Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stove Builder, Int’l, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48103 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2019), considered whether to allow the defendants to file a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors. Finding that the defendants could not pursue contribution claims against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors, the court denied the defendant’s motion to file a third-party complaint.
The underlying subrogation action involved allegations of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty against a pellet heater manufacturer and the retailer who sold the heater. The claims arose from a fire allegedly originating from the heater, which spread to the insureds-subrogors’ home causing property damage, along with consequential damages. Pursuant to the applicable insurance policy, the insureds-subrogors’ insurer issued payments to its insureds-subrogors. Thereafter, the insurer filed suit against the heater manufacturer and retailer.
The defendants filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors, seeking to assert a contribution claim. The defendants alleged that the insureds-subrogors failed to properly install and maintain the pellet heater. The defendants also sought a jury instruction that would permit the jury to apportion fault to the insureds-subrogors, resulting in a reduction of the plaintiff’s recovery. The court looked to federal procedural law, but Kentucky substantive law to decide the defendants’ motion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and WilliamsMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability
December 16, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday Musings, we welcome Nick Pacella. Nick is an architect licensed in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. His practice has spanned several economic swings and he has been able to reposition the eggs in his basket to make the most of each recovery. He is currently focusing on adapting existing commercial buildings to take advantage of materials and processes that promote improved energy efficiency for both the owner and the tenants. For a more colorful rendition of projects you can visit his company’s website.
I remember as a kid when the attendant at gas stations would not only clean your windows but also check the oil level of your vehicle as it was filling up with $0.25 per gallon gas. (I did say that I have seen several economic swings) These services have mostly disappeared, and to no great effect to your car since most cars go much longer between oil changes. Other than a slightly dirtier windshield it hasn’t affected your ability to drive and maintain your car.
This is not so with professional services. Architects used to include many services that are now sourced to others. Project Management, Owner’s Representatives and Program Managers now populate the landscape. In many cases they came to be because architects either did not provide the service their client’s were looking for or they allowed themselves to be put into an adversarial relationship with their clients. They were likened to foxes watching the chicken coop, especially for project management and owners representative services. Client’s have had others buzzing in their ears “are architects really going to look out for my interests above theirs?’” Of course the clients never ask if the new wave will do any better at rallying behind their interests.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars
February 21, 2022 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, three Partners have been named to the 2022 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list.
2022 Illinois Super Lawyers
2022 Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party
November 18, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe plaintiff insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that defendant insurer was obligated to defend a non-party as an additional insured was granted. Am Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2019 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 4145 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2019).
Quality Building Construction, LLC was the contractor hired to work on exterior facade of a building owned by Central Park West Corporation. The underlying complaint alleged that Quality caused plastic spacers and pedestals used for the penthouse terrace to fall down the roof drain riser. A clog and rainwater backup resulted in water damage to apartment 8A. The resulting damage was allegedly due to the clogged roof drain riser.
Quality subcontracted the work to Mega State, Inc. The subcontract required Mega to indemnify and hold Quality harmless against claims in connection with Mega's work, as well as name Quality as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory bases under Mega's CGL policy. Burlington issued a policy to Mega naming Quality as an additional insured. American Empire issued a CGL policy to Quality.
Quality was sued in the underlying action, but Mega was not. American Empire tendered a demand for coverage to Mega and Burlington, relying on the agreement between Quality and Mega. Burlington responded that Mega was not liable for the alleged damages. American Empire sued Burlington. Subsequently, Burlington accepted the tender to defend Quality in the underlying action, and reserved rights as to whether Burlington's policy was primary and on the question of indemnification. American Empire agreed to withdraw its suit if Burlington would modify its reservation of rights. Burlington refused.
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
Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.
The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.
Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.
Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.
However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Am I Still Covered Under the Title Insurance Policy?
May 01, 2019 —
Ian Douglas - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogWhen transferring property for corporate restructuring or estate planning purposes, an important issue to consider is whether the successor owner will be covered by the grantee’s title insurance policy. Because title insurance policies insure only the title of the “Insured” identified in the policy, the successor in interest of the named insured may not be covered following the transfer.
In older ALTA title insurance policies, the definition of “Insured” included the person or entity specifically identified in the policy as the insured, as well as any subsequent owners who took title to the subject property by operation of law. Because those policies did not clarify what the term “by operation of law” meant, it was unclear whether certain subsequent owners, such as a parent or subsidiary of the original insured, fell within the definition of “Insured”. In order to avoid any risk that a subsequent owner following a transfer between related parties was not covered by the grantor’s title policy, parties often obtained an “additional insured” endorsement which provided the subsequent owner coverage under the original policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ian Douglas, Snell & WilmerMr. Douglas may be contacted at
idouglas@swlaw.com
BWB&O Expands to North San Diego
December 09, 2019 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’MearaBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara is excited to announce our expansion to North San Diego County. Our new office location in Encinitas is strategically located between our Newport Beach and Downtown San Diego offices. The new North San Diego office will provide further resources to better serve our clients.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
Miller Law Firm Helped HOA Recover for Construction Defects without Filing a Lawsuit
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to a press release published on the PR Newswire, The Miller Law Firm “recovered $910,000 for the 1635 California Owners' Association for construction defects without ever filing a complaint.” William Nagle, Special Master & Mediator, facilitated the settlement “a year after putting the builder on notice under SB 800, California’s Right to Repair Law.”
“Independent forensic expert inspections revealed building standard violations ranging from improperly installed gutters resulting in water intrusion in the units project wide, active leaks, standing water and inadequate gutters resulting in staining and efflorescence on the garage walls, balcony, and tile grout, discoloration and extensive cracking in the stucco project wide, inadequate weather stripping with evidence of condensation staining at windows, window frames and adjacent paint, inadequate ventilation, and ADA violations including loose glass guardrails and in regards to accessible rooftop common areas,” according to the press release.
“This case settled prior to any formal mediation and I credit the diligence of both the Association and builder counsel,” Nagle stated. “Tom Miller is one of the most knowledgeable and respected plaintiffs' lawyers in the construction defect area. And I compliment both counsel on their preparation and cost-effective handling of the case in reaching a fair and reasonable result for their respective clients."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
