Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says
May 05, 2014 —
Alan Levin – BloombergDivisions in Congress over boosting funding for bridge repairs and highway construction are making it difficult to pass a long-term measure in time to prevent a disruption in existing road projects, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said.
“I would say that we have a tough, a tough challenge ahead of us that hasn’t been solved for a long time,” Foxx said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.
The Highway Trust Fund, financed by gasoline and diesel taxes, may soon not be able to meet its financial obligations, according to Foxx’s agency. The Obama administration on April 29 sent legislation to Congress proposing $302 billion for road and mass transit projects over four years, with part of the money coming from new taxes on company earnings overseas.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alan Levin, BloombergMr. Levin may be contacted at
alevin24@bloomberg.net
Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat
November 02, 2020 —
Yaron Dycian - Construction ExecutiveFire damage to commercial buildings might get headlines, but water damage, whether to projects under construction or completed buildings, delivers massive financial blows to owners, developers and contractors. The impact is massive, reaching many billions of dollars per year. One water leak on the 19th floor at a construction site of a high-end apartment building in New York City resulted in $30 million in property damage and millions in delayed delivery penalties.
Imagine this all-too-typical scenario: A 20-story building has thousands of pipe connections and many tens of thousands throughout the entire building. It only takes one of those joints failing, perhaps due to human oversight. Early on a Saturday morning when no one is onsite, one of the connections inside a wall begins to leak, slowly at first. In a couple hours the connection fails completely, sending a cascade of water into the building. The site is located next to a highway, so the security guards don’t hear the water flowing.
The leak goes undetected until crews come back onsite on Monday morning. By that point, lower levels of the building have been inundated with thousands of gallons of water that has destroyed construction material, carpeting and electrical switchgear. It’s flowed into the elevator pits and mechanical room.
Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Dycian, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Dycian may be contacted at
yaron@wint.ai
20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!
August 24, 2020 —
Wilke FleuryCongratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2020!
Each attorney has been awarded an accolade in the following practice areas:
Kathryne Baldwin – Insurance
Dan Baxter – Business Litigation & Government Contracts
Adriana Cervantes – Medical Malpractice
Heather Claus – Health Care
Aaron Claxton – Health Care
Dan Egan – Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor
Samson Elsbernd – Employment & Labor
Danny Foster – Litigation Insurance
David Frenznick – Construction & Construction Litigation
George Guthrie – Real Estate & Construction Litigation
Ron Lamb – Medical Malpractice
Neal Lutterman – Medical Malpractice
Steve Marmaduke – Business/Corporate & Real Estate
Gene Pendergast – Estate Planning & Probate
Mike Polis – Health Care
Matthew Powell – Business Litigation
Bianca Samuel – Employment & Labor
Shannon Smith-Crowley – Legislative & Governmental Affairs
Spencer Turpen – Medical Malpractice
Steve Williamson – Business Litigation & Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subcontractor Strikes Out in its Claims Against Federal Government
July 08, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIs it a good idea for a subcontractor to sue the federal government? A recent case would suggest NO–way too many huge hurdles for the subcontractor to overcome. No matter how creative the arguments may be, it’s a high mountain to climb.
In Fox Logistics & Construction Co. v. U.S., 2024 WL 2807677 (Fed.Cl. 2024), a subcontractor sued the federal government when it was not paid by the prime contractor. The subcontractor claimed it was a third-party beneficiary under the government’s modifications to the prime contractor’s payment procedure, or alternatively it had an implied-in-fact contract with the government. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The subcontractor, while creative, struck out in its claims based on the hurdles in a subcontractor suing the federal government.
This case involved upgrading an air force base. The subcontractor performed most of the work. The prime contractor had cash flow problems and did not pay the subcontractor. The government got involved to enforce provisions of its contract to force the prime contractor to pay subcontractors and even modified the payment procedure by having future payments to the prime contractor deposited into a new bank account that government could monitor. This ultimately did not work, and the prime contractor filed for bankruptcy. The subcontractor claimed it was owed millions–apparently, it was not able to recover the money through the prime contractor’s bankruptcy—and pursued claims against the federal government in an effort to recover money it was owed.
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
Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident
August 10, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.The manufacturer of the Fire Ball ride at the Ohio State Fair claims that excessive corrosion “led to the accident that killed a teenager and injured seven others…in July.”
According to a statement by KMG International, reported by ABC News, “Corrosion on the interior of the support beam reduced the beam's thickness, which led to the accident at the fair.” Furthermore, “The company said it conducted an investigation into the incident, which included a visit to the scene and a review of video footage of the incident. The company also conducted a metallurgical inspection of the ride.”
A U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) spokesperson said “it is aware of 22 deaths associated with amusement attractions since 2010, including Wednesday's incident, but excluding water park and work-related fatalities.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements
December 30, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCThe case of Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 452374 (D. Colo. February 6, 2013) is instructive as an example of both the confusion and resulting escalation of litigation that can result from a lack of clarity in settlement negotiations. This is particularly true where parties settle outside of their insurance coverage, and/or without notifying their insurer(s), which have denied coverage.
The case involved coverage litigation following settlement of a multi-party construction defect case involving the Rivergate multi-family residential development in Durango, Colorado. The condominium owners association sued, among others, the developer (Rivergate Lofts Partners, hereafter “RLP”) and the general contractor (Genex Construction, LLC, hereafter “Genex”). This follow-on case involved the insurers for RLP (“Hartford”) and Genex (“Bituminous”). The coverage dispute was complicated by the Bituminous allegations that Hartford insured Genex in its alleged role as a manager for RLP, as part of Hartford’s insurance of RLP more generally.
The underlying facts were that Hartford denied insurance coverage and defense to Genex/Bituminous. The underlying construction defect case went to mediation, with the COA, RLP, and Genex all in attendance with their respective insurer representatives, and coverage counsel. While the evolving facts of that mediation were later disputed as to their motives, intentions, and the contemporaneous knowledge of the parties, the facts reflected in documents were fairly clear.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Expanded Virginia Court of Appeals Leads to Policyholder Relief
January 29, 2024 —
Michael S. Levine & Olivia G. Bushman - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogExercising its newly expanded jurisdiction that now permits Virginia’s intermediate appellate courts to hear insurance coverage disputes, the Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court decision that allowed a two-year “Suits Against Us” provision to serve as a basis for an insurer’s refusal to reimburse repair and replacement costs incurred more than two years after the date of loss. Bowman II v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Record No. 1256-22-3 (Nov. 21, 2023). CAV (unpublished opinion).
In the proceeding below, the circuit court found no justiciable controversy and dismissed the complaint where repairs to the policyholder’s fire-damaged home continued more than two years after the date of the fire. The circuit court relied on a two-year limitation in the policy that governed the period within which the policyholder must bring suit against the insurer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Olivia G. Bushman, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Bushman may be contacted at obushman@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
