CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

April 20, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Assignment of insurance proceeds as part of a settlement against the subcontractor for faulty workmanship was not covered under the CGL policy in accordance with Illinois law. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins Co v. Metro North Condominium Assoc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4107 (7th Cir. March 8, 2017). Metro North Condominium Association hired a developer to build a condominium. The developer used CSC Glass to install the building's windows. CSC installed the windows defectively, causing the building to sustain significant water damage following a rain storm. Metro North sued the developer, who turned out to be insolvent. Metro North amended its complaint to add a claim against CSC for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Metro North eventually dismissed its lawsuit in exchange for an assignment of CSC's policy with Allied and payment of any right to $700,000 worth of insurance coverage. The settlement specified that it was not intended to compensate Metro North for the cost of repairing or replacing CSC's defectively installed windows, but rather for the damage to the remaining parts of Metro North's condominium. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

February 07, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insureds attempt to secure coverage for ensuing losses after foundation damage was properly denied by the insurer. Walker v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6683 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014). Two provisions excluding coverage under Nationwide's homeowner's policy were key to the court's decision. Exclusion 3 (e) barred coverage for "continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or stem over a period of time . . . ." Exclusion 3 (f) (6) precluded coverage for settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roof or ceiling. The policy also included a Dwelling Foundation Endorsement which covered settling, cracking, bulging of floor slabs or footings that supported the dwelling caused by seepage or leakage of water or steam. This endorsement stated the limit of liability would not exceed an amount equal to 15% of the limit of coverage for the dwelling. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

August 17, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Andrea DeField - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On June 29, in a development that may fundamentally change the landscape for California businesses which have sustained COVID-19 related business interruption loss, two California legislators amended pending legislation to address several of the most hotly contested issues regarding insurance recovery for these devastating losses. The bill, Assembly Bill 1552, focuses on All-Risk property insurance policies. As amended, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that COVID-19 was present on and caused physical damage to property which was the direct cause of business interruption. A similar rebuttable presumption would apply to orders of civil authority coverage and to ingress/egress coverage. The bill would further prohibit COVID-19 from being construed as a pollutant or contaminant for purposes of any policy exclusion unless the exclusion specifically referred to viruses. The bill would apply to any All-Risk policy in effect on or after March 4, 2020 and is written to satisfy the standards for an “urgency” statute, taking effect immediately upon being signed into law. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Haight Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

September 04, 2018 — William G. Baumgaertner & Denis J. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019. Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law, and Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation. Reprinted courtesy of William G. Baumgaertner, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Denis J. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Fraud Claims and Breach Of Warranty Claims Against Manufacturer

March 04, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case touches upon two issues that are noteworthy when considering fraud claims and breach of warranty claims against a manufacturer. Below contains a discussion on these claims. Independent Tort Doctrine “Florida’s independent tort doctrine provides that a party may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.” MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc., 2024 WL 414620, *6 (M.D.Fla. 2024). This means tort allegations and claims MUST be separate and distinct from performance under the contract. Id. (citation omitted). In MidAmerica C2L, a plaintiff sued a manufacturer relating to sophisticated equipment for a coal gasification plant. The parties entered into different agreements for the equipment and a license where the plaintiff could use the manufacturer’s patented technology for its coal gasification plants. A dispute arose and the plaintiff sued the manufacturer under various legal theories. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

January 06, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
After a four-day trial, an Arizona federal jury found that Western Truck Insurance Services, Inc., an insurance broker, was negligent in selling Madison Alley Transportation and Logistics Inc. a business interruption policy with inadequate annual limits. Based on its finding of negligence, the jury determined that the broker was liable for $685,000 of $1,000,000 in damages suffered by Madison Alley as a result of a flood in its warehouse. The verdict and Complaint, filed in Arizona state court before the case was removed, can be found here and here. In June 2016, a subtenant in Madison Alley’s warehouse broke a sprinkler line while operating a forklift, causing the warehouse to flood. The warehouse was used to store and deliver retail display goods, and Madison Alley was unable to do business during the five months of repairs. Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses. Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

October 19, 2017 — William L. Doerler - White and Williams LLP
When the validity of a construction defect claim depends on whether the claim is barred by the applicable state’s statute of repose, it is important to review the statute to identify when claims subject to the statute of repose accrue. In Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 219 So.3d 93 (Fla. Ct. App. (5th Dist.) 2017), the Court of Appeals of Florida clarified the accrual date for the statute of repose in cases where the accrual date depends on a construction contract’s completion date. Pursuant to Busch, the date of full performance under the contract, not the building’s purchase closing date, is the date on which claims accrue. In Busch, Timothy Busch (Busch), pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement, contracted to have Lennar Homes build him a house. Nearly ten years after closing on the home, Busch served Lennar Homes with a notice of construction defects, as required by Florida’s right-to-repair act. Shortly thereafter, but more than 10 years after the home’s closing date, Busch filed suit against Lennar Homes, alleging that there were multiple construction defects associated with the home. Lennar Homes, relying on Florida’s statute of repose, Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c), filed a motion to dismiss Busch’s complaint. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

June 10, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As reported last week at the Virginia Real Estate, Land Use and Construction Law Blog (authored by my good friend Tim Hughes (@timrhughes)), the Virginia General Assembly has passed an amendment to the jurisdictional limitations of Virginia General District Courts. The new statute, going into effect July 1, 2011, increases the jurisdiction of these courts to $25,000 from the present level of $15,000. Why is this a big deal? As a solo practitioner who represents contractors and subcontractors in cases big and small, this increase is a boon to my practice and the collect-ability of some debts. I think back to the numerous conversations I have had with clients who had bona fide claims for around $20,000. These conversations inevitably turned toward the cost of Circuit Court versus General District Court and whether it would be better to leave money out of the claim to avoid the ramped up attorney fee and filing costs (not to mention the time from filing to judgment). This conversation was especially relevant in the instance where the contracts did not contain an attorney fees provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---