Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E
September 17, 2014 —
Mark Chediak – BloombergA deadly pipeline explosion that shattered a California town four years ago continues to rip through the state agency weighing a record penalty for the disaster.
The president of the California Public Utilities Commission asked his chief of staff to resign and recused himself from the case after “inappropriate e-mail exchanges” with PG&E Corp. (PCG) raised questions about bias, according to a statement from the commission yesterday. The CPUC may decide within weeks whether to levy a proposed $1.4 billion penalty -- the biggest safety fine in the state’s history -- against PG&E for the 2010 explosion of a natural gas pipeline that killed eight people in San Bruno.
Commission President Michael Peevey, who has been accused by San Bruno officials and consumer advocates of being too close to the utility, said in the statement he would not take part in penalty deliberations to eliminate any appearance of impropriety. The move is a step toward regaining credibility for the CPUC after two years of political infighting has created an ongoing climate of scandal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, BloombergMr. Chediak may be contacted at
mchediak@bloomberg.net
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stuck on You”
March 04, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA “contract of adhesion” is referred to as a standard form contract – usually preprinted – “prepared by a party of superior bargaining power for adherence or rejection of the weaker party.” Yet, it is not the nature of the contract alone which determines its enforceability, but, instead, “whether a party truly consented to all of the printed terms.”
A Louisiana plaintiff fighting a forum selection clause in a construction contract sought to have the clause nullified, urging that the clause was “buried” in the agreement and in small font, arguing also that the contractor had “superior bargaining position at the time of entering into the contract… because [plaintiff] needed to repair the hurricane damage” to his home as soon as possible.
In response, the contractor urged that the contract was not executed under rush conditions, and that, in any event, the contract was only two pages long – and the forum selection clause was not hidden and was in the same font as all of the other provisions in the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers
October 12, 2020 —
Christopher Sisk & Robert Mercado - Construction ExecutiveThe anticipation has been building regarding implementation of the new revenue recognition standard, known as Topic 606, by private companies. Public companies have reported under Topic 606 since the beginning of 2019. For private companies, the time is now. As of January 2020, private companies became subject to Topic 606 for all entities with a year-end of Dec. 31, 2019, or subsequent. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic affecting businesses across the board, this year any company with a year-end financial statement not yet issued can defer implementation of Topic 606 until the contractors’ next year end that falls after Dec. 15, 2020.
What have we learned about the impact of Topic 606, if any, on construction contractors’ financial statements? The most significant impact relates to the presentation of contract assets and contract liabilities, and the disclosures associated with Topic 606. The recording of what is known as “the cost to fulfill a contract” is another area that has been affected.
PRESENTATION OF CONTRACT ASSET AND CONTRACT LIABILITY
A contract asset is defined in Topic 606 as an entity’s right to consideration in exchange for goods or services the entity has transferred to a customer, conditional on something other than the passage of time.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Sisk & Robert Mercado, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Sisk may be contacted at Christopher.sisk@marcumllp.com
Mr. Mercado may be contacted at Robert.mercado@marcumllp.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Domtar Update
June 11, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPOn May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”
In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLPMr. Caplan may be contacted at
caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com
The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement
April 15, 2024 —
Jordan A. Hutcheson and Stephanie Rolfsness - Watt TiederThe Contract Disputes Act (the “CDA”), 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 7101 et seq., which has provided the statutory framework for resolution of most contract disputes between the federal government and its contractors since 1978, has recently been the subject of changes in judicial interpretation, despite no corresponding statutory changes. The CDA’s implementing provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), require that contractors submit a claim to the government in the form of written demand to a contracting officer requesting a final decision and seeking the payment of money in a sum certain prior to pursuing resolution via board or court. However, with respect to the sum certain requirement, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late 2023 determining that this requirement “should not be given the jurisdictional brand” as it has categorically received in the past. Rather, the court concluded that the sum certain requirement is merely an element of a claim for relief under the CDA that a contractor must satisfy to recover. This rebranding does not debase the sum certain requirement, but it does indicate a renewed focus on what constitutes “jurisdictional” in government contracts litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan A. Hutcheson, Watt Tieder and
Stephanie Rolfsness, Watt Tieder
Ms. Hutcheson may be contacted at jhutcheson@watttieder.com
Ms. Rolfsness may be contacted at srolfsness@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFTwo years into a lawsuit against Shapell Homes, the builder of a subdivision called Eagle Ridge in Gilroy, California, homeowners have joined or left the lawsuit. About fifty homeowners are still in the suit, which contends that construction defects have lead to water intrusion in their homes. The lawyer for the homeowners contends that more than a hundred homes have construction defects.
One homeowner said that soon after he joined the suit, Sharpell sent workers to his home who repaired problems to his satisfaction. “They came in within two weeks and fixed everything,” said Frank Lowry. Another homeowner, Wilson Haddow, said that he was “quite happy” after Shapell repaired problems.
Others weren’t quite so happy. Greg Yancey said that problems had “been a nightmare” and that “it just doesn’t feel like home.” He said that his “house is possessed,” with problems that include walls that bow out and a balcony that drips rainwater to the front door. His home is currently worth far less than the $700,000 he paid in 2007.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver
November 02, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs is always the case here in Virginia, our General Assembly has made some legislative changes that affect construction contracting. One of these changes is an amendment to Va. Code 43-13 found in the mechanic’s lien section of the Virginia Code.
This section of the code has always required that any money paid to a contractor must first go toward paying its subcontractors, suppliers and laborers prior to being used for any other purpose. Prior to 2020, the only remedy for violaiton of Va. Code 43-13 was to go to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney and request a prosecution of the wrongdoer. For various reasons, including that such action did not get the subcontractor or supplier that remained unpaid under this section paid, this remedy was not often pursued except in the most egrigious cases.
A key change in the statute occurred during the 2020 legislative session states as follows:
Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project. Any contract or subcontract provision that allows a contracting party to withhold funds due under one contract or subcontract for alleged claims or damages due on another contract or subcontract is void as against public policy.
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
