Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Allied Framers, Inc. v. Golden Bear Insurance Company. Allied had been sued in a construction defect case and its primary insurer had become insolvent. Coverage for Allied’s defense was paid for by the California Insurance Guarantee Association through June 8, 2006. When warned that CIGA’s involvement was ending, Allied notified Golden Bear, which declined to provide coverage.
In the matters that followed, Golden Bear claimed that Allied had not exhausted its $1 million in primary insurance. Allied then showed that $1 million had already been paid out in the case. A few months thereafter, Golden Bear offered a $500,000 settlement on behalf of Allied which was rejected. Thereafter, Golden Bear hired new counsel to defend Allied. Golden Bear received, but allegedly did not pay, invoices Allied sent from their former counsel. Golden Bear finally settled the construction defect case for $2 million.
Allied’s original counsel sued Allied for payment. Golden Bear declined coverage. Allied then claimed that Golden Bear liable on several counts, arising from its failure to settle the construction defect action earlier than it did and its failure to pay Allied’s counsel. Golden Bear demurred, arguing that Allied had now exhausted is coverage with the $2 million settlement. The lower court sustained Golden Bear’s demurrer, dismissing Allied’s complaints.
The appeal court reviewed Allied’s seven complaints and sustained most of them. However, the court did reverse the trial court’s order in regard to Allied’s complaint that Golden Bear breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appeals court was not convinced that Golden Bear properly evaluated the settlement demand in the underlying construction defect case. The court found three other ways in which Golden Bear’s actions might show bad faith, in refusing to pay defense fees “after promising [Allied] such costs would be paid in full,” “failing to advise Allied about ‘actual or potential negative consequences of agreeing to the proposed settlement,’” and that their choice of counsel “failed to protect [Allied’s] interests in the negotiation.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements
February 03, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWith increasing frequency in the construction defect cases we defend, we are seeing commercial general liability insurance policies with “subcontractor warranty” endorsements. Also known as contractor or subcontractor special conditions, these endorsements could have severe and negative consequences for builders that do not comply with their requirements. In researching for this article, I reviewed six different endorsements used by six different carriers, all of which contained some or all of the following requirements:
- The builder must have signed subcontract agreements with its subcontractors that require subcontractors to hold harmless, i.e., defend and indemnify, the builder for “bodily injury” or “property damage” claims caused by their negligence.
- The subcontractors must maintain their own insurance with limits equal to or greater than the limits in the builder’s own policy, with limits of at least $1 million per occurrence.
- The subcontractors’ insurance must not exclude the work being performed for the builder, e.g., the excavator’s policy cannot exclude earth movement claims, the subcontractor’s policy cannot exclude residential construction.
- The subcontractors must maintain their own workers’ compensation and/or employer’s liability insurance.
- The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that the builder has been added to the subcontractors’ insurance as an additional insured.
- The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that their insurance carriers have agreed to provide waivers of subrogation in favor of the builder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations
July 31, 2024 —
Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (July 1, 2024) – In a much-anticipated decision, on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping opinion “overrul[ing]” a 40-year old precedent that required judges to defer to federal agency interpretations of their governing statutes when those laws were ambiguous or silent. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, et al. No. 22-451 (2024), overruling Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
The decision means that courts will no longer give special weight to an agency’s view of the scope of its regulatory powers but must apply independent judgment in deciding “whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Loper Bright, slip op. at 35. Taking pains to explain that the new ruling would not allow for reversals of cases previously decided under the Chevron doctrine, the Court left no doubt that, in the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch, “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” Id., Gorsuch Concurring Opinion at 1.
Writing for a 6-2 majority, Chief Justice Roberts forcefully condemned the Chevron-based principle that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the scope of its legal authority, rejecting the concept that agencies have any special expertise in statutory interpretation, a field reserved to the courts, not the executive branch, under Article III of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jane C. Luxton, Lewis BrisboisMs. Luxton may be contacted at
Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good
November 02, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPTales of subcontractors who close up shop before paying their employees are not all that uncommon, but they are certainly not common enough to require General Contractors to pay for that same labor twice. Last month, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1701, which requires the General Contractor of a private construction project to pay all unpaid wages and fringe benefits owed to an employee of a subcontractor, irrespective of the tier, and even if the General Contractor made the payment. With the Governor’s recent signature, Assembly Bill No. 1701 is now the law of the land. Here is what you need to know:
- It applies to all private (but not public) construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018;
- It gives a subcontractor’s employee a direct cause of action against the General Contractor for any unpaid wages and fringe benefits, even if the General Contractor has fully paid the subcontractor;
- It gives a third party owed fringe or other benefits a cause of action against the General Contractor;
- All actions by the employee or third party must be filed within one year of the earliest of the recordation of the notice of completion, the recordation of the notice of cessation of work, or the actual completion of the work;
- The General Contractor cannot contract to avoid the liability imposed by Assembly Bill No. 1701, but it can seek indemnity from the subcontractor; and
- At the General Contractor’s request, the subcontractor shall provide the General Contractor with its payroll records.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Collaborating or Competing with Construction Tech Startups
November 15, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI recently interviewed 20 experts and thought leaders about real estate and construction technology and innovation. Many of the interviewees talked about collaboration with startups and how to make the most of it.
There’s a growing interest in construction technology. Construction tech firms have garnered $10 billion in investment funding from 2011 through early 2017, according to McKinsey & Company. AngelList, a startup and investor website, currently features over 13,000 companies with “construction” as a keyword.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
info@aepartners.fi
Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor
August 20, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Shareholder Karen Holmes and Law Clerk Justin Reid of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes, in Atlas-Allied v. SD Community College District, the California Court of Appeal “confirmed that a civil engineer owes no duty of care to the General Contractor absent privity of contract.” The Appellate court considered Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP to reach that conclusion.
Holmes and Reid commented that the Atlas-Allied decision “can assist in clarifying the extent liability is owed when no contract exists. Here, while unpublished, the 4th District clearly refused to extend a duty by the civil engineer to the general contractor on a public works project, giving counsel guidance on the application of Beacon and prior decisions on design professionals’ liability.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level
November 18, 2019 —
Joseph Ferrentino – Newmeyer DillionA recent California law will hold homeowners’ associations accountable for the safety of their decks. SB326 now mandates all homeowners' associations to have decks inspected at least once every nine years by an architect or structural engineer to determine whether the decks are safe and waterproof. This law (Civil Code section 5551) follows SB721 which was passed in 2018 and requires a similar inspection every six years for other multifamily dwelling units. Failure to comply can result in paying the enforcement costs of local building agencies.
DETAILS ON THE MANDATE:
More specifically, the 2019 law requires inspections of wood “decks, balconies, stairways, and their railings” more than six feet off of the ground and designed for human use. Additionally, the engineer or architect must (1) certify that he or she has inspected for safety and waterproofing, and (2) certify the remaining useful life of the system. Further, the inspector must inspect a random sample of enough units to provide 95% confidence that “the results are reflective of the whole.” In other words, in addition to the inspector, the association will have to hire a statistician.
The nine-year timetable for inspection is no coincidence. After all, the statute of limitations for construction defects is ten years. In fact, associations are required to give notice to their members before filing a suit against a builder. However, under the new law, the association can delay giving notice to its members “if the association has reason to believe that the statute of limitations will expire.” Also, recent case law held that builders could add requirements to CC&R’s to limit a board’s authority to file lawsuits – i.e. adding a supermajority vote by members. Under SB326, any such provisions are now void. Hence, “supermajority” voting provisions are now invalid.
IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION
These recent laws are clearly a reaction to the tragic collapse of an apartment balcony in Berkley in 2015 that resulted in the death of six college students. While it is imperative that decks be structurally safe, the requirements of SB326 will fuel more construction defect litigation.
Joseph Ferrentino is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Newport Beach office. With 25 years of experience, Joe guides clients through construction law issues, among other areas. For more information on how Joe can help, contact him at joe.ferrentino@ndlf.com
ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients’ business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
