Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies
March 06, 2022 —
Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsThe construction industry operates under the constant spectre of claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Fortunately, the law in most states treats these claims as covered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. A small minority of states take a much stingier view. In a newly decided case, a Pennsylvania federal court confirmed that Pennsylvania belongs to this small group of states that regard construction claims as not worthy of liability insurance coverage. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Howard Lynch Plastering, Inc., No. CV 21-3977, 2022 WL 445768, (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022).
Main St. involves a typical construction defect case: W.B. Homes (“W.B.”) developed a residential community, contracting with various trades to build the homes. W.B. required these subcontractors to obtain liability insurance covering their work and, when homeowners sued W.B. for damages due to allegedly faulty work, W.B. tendered the claim to these insurers. One of them, Main Street Assurance Co. (“Main Street”) then sued W.B. for declaratory relief, arguing that under Pennsylvania law, it had no duty to defend W.B.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits
October 03, 2022 —
Richard W. Brown & Sarah J. Markham - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The December 2021 First Department decision in Nouveau Elevator Indus. v. New York Marine & General Ins. Co. is pushing some buttons in the elevator industry, given the significant implications it may have on the adequacy of policy limits for elevator service companies operating in New York state.
The Court held in Nouveau that monthly elevator maintenance work performed under an ongoing service agreement is considered “completed operations” for purposes of applying policy limits. Specifically, the Court found that the per location policy limits are not implicated here, and instead held that the products-completed operations aggregate limit applies to completed work, which expressly includes “that part of the work done at a job site [that] has been put to its intended use.”
Facts of the Case
Nouveau provides elevator maintenance and service in the greater New York city region. Its work is done in multiple buildings and locations throughout the city. Nouveau purchased six commercial general liability (CGL) policies from New York Marine for consecutive one-year periods. Each of the CGL policies provides a liability limit of $1 million, with an aggregate limit of $2 million, per accident or occurrence.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Sarah J. Markham, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Markham may be contacted at SMarkham@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language
February 23, 2016 —
Greg Steinberg – White and Williams LLPThe hallmark of a claims-made insurance policy is that the policy only provides coverage for claims that are “first made” during the policy period. As noted by the Texas Supreme Court, “for the insurer, the inherent benefit of a claims-made policy is the insurer's ability to close its books on a policy at its expiration and thus to attain a level of predictability unattainable under standard occurrence policies.”[1]
To ensure this “level of predictability,” claims-made insurance policies contain provisions stating that all “Related Claims” will be treated as a single claim deemed first made at the time the earliest of such claims was made. The “Related Claims” provision is an issue that comes up time and again – claims can span years, especially in the context of regulatory investigations, which often culminate in enforcement proceedings and litigation. This inevitably leads to disputes regarding whether later claims can be related back to the earlier claim, an issue that becomes even thornier when different insurers participate on different policy years.
Over time, case law on “Related Claims” has been mixed and somewhat inconsistent, with each case tending to hinge on its own unique set of facts, making it difficult to identify a clear standard for determining whether claims are related. However, three recent decisions out of the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits show that courts are increasingly deferring to the plain language of the policy and applying these provisions broadly.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Steinberg, White and Williams LLPMr. Steinberg may be contacted at
steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com
NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard
September 17, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorPerhaps in anticipation of Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, establishing an easier standard for unions to prove that a joint employer relationship exists. This will make it easier for unions to make the upstream company, like a parent company, liable for unfair labor practices, even if the upstream company had no direct involvement.
Some Background
BFI runs a recycling plant and contracts with Leadpoint to provide workers to sort garbage in the recycling plant. The staffing agreement specifically stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer of the personnel it supplied and Leadpoint handled supervision of the employees, not BFI.
Leadpoint’s employees sought to unionize and an election was held. The union filed a petition seeking a determination that Leadpoint and BFI were a joint employers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
“Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint
January 13, 2020 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistIn Barrett v. Berry Contr. L.P., No. 13-18-00498-CV, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 8811, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas considered, among other things, the procedural timing requirements of filing a certificate of merit in conjunction with a complaint. The court concluded that the proper reading of the statute requires a plaintiff to file a certificate of merit with the first complaint naming the defendant as a party.
In Barrett, after sustaining injuries while working at a refinery, David Barrett (Barrett) filed suit against Berry Contracting, LP and Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd. on July 6, 2016. In Barrett’s first amended complaint, which he filed on August 23, 2016, Barrett added Govind Development, LLC (Govind) as another defendant. Barrett subsequently filed a second amended complaint (omitting Govind) and, on December 27, 2017, shortly before the statute of limitations ran, a third amended complaint (reasserting claims against Govind). On January 28, 2018, after the statute of limitations period ran, Barrett filed a certificate of merit. Govind filed a motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that Barrett violated the statute that required a certificate of merit to be filed with the complaint, Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code §150.002.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §150.002(a) states,
In any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, a claimant shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect or registered professional land surveyor…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLPMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
Subsequent Purchaser Can Assert Claims for Construction Defects
October 17, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCan a subsequent purchaser pursue construction defect claims relating to the original construction of the property? This was the threshold issue on a motion for summary judgment by a drywall manufacturer against a subsequent purchaser of a home in Karpel v. Knauf Gips KG, 2022 WL 4366946 (S.D. Fla. 2022). This matter deals with the defective Chinese drywall that was installed in homes years ago. The plaintiffs, which were subsequent purchasers of a home, sued the manufacturer of the defective drywall for various theories including negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, unjust enrichment, and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The trial court noted, from the onset, that Florida does NOT have a subsequent purchaser rule that prohibits subsequent purchasers from asserting construction defect claims. With this consideration in mind, the trial court went through the claims the plaintiff, as a subsequent purchaser, asserted against the manufacturer to determine whether they were viable claims as a matter of law.
Negligence Claim
The trial court found that a subsequent purchaser could sue in negligence. “Florida courts have long allowed subsequent purchasers to sue for negligence including in construction defect litigation.” Karpel, supra, at *2.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP blog on Construction Law, even though the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated (NRS) Chapter 40 requires a general contractor “to provide pre-litigation notice (followed by an opportunity to repair) to a subcontractor or supplier the general contractor believes to be responsible” for the issue prior to filing suit, the Nevada Supreme Court “determined that NRS Chapter 40 imposes no such requirement upon a subcontractor.”
In Barrett v. Eighth Judicial District Court, “the court reasoned that ‘while the statutes’ and, indeed, chapter’s purpose is, in part, to allow defendants an initial opportunity to repair, the Legislature chose to carry out that purpose in the manner provided by the statutes, and [the Supreme Court] will not read into the statutes a notice requirement between a subcontractor and another subcontractor or supplier where none exist.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?
May 16, 2018 —
Christopher M. Horton - Smith CurrieAll general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount.
Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher M. Horton, Smith CurrieMr. Horton may be contacted at
cmhorton@smithcurrie.com
