CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

August 31, 2020 — Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction. In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1 Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

---

Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Safety 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Improvements to Confederate Monuments Lead to Lawsuits

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lawsuits concerning handicap access usually go toward obligating someone to provide access. But in Selma, Alabama, the city decided that handicap access to a Civil War memorial might not be all that important. The city of Selma hired KTK Mining to provide wheelchair accessibility to the city’s Memorial to the Confederate Dead and to increase security to a monument to the Confederate general Nathan Beford Forrest. After protests, the city revoked the building permit. KTM sued in federal court. The judge has ordered the two parties to a settlement contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

LA Wildfires Push California Insurance Market to Its Limit

January 14, 2025 — Leslie Kaufman, Lauren Rosenthal, Michelle Ma & Alexandre Rajbhandari - Bloomberg
If you live in California, you’re always bracing for the Big One. This week it arrived in the form of uncontrollable flames. Liability experts equipped with climate models had been uneasily eyeing such a scenario, realizing in recent years that wildfire now had similar system-crashing potential as a major earthquake to upend lives and destabilize California’s $10 trillion residential property market. A group convened to examine worst-case scenarios determined that three specific areas in the state were particularly vulnerable and capable of causing far-reaching fallout. One was Pacific Palisades, the Los Angeles neighborhood reduced to ashes this week by one of at least five fires burning across the city. Reprinted courtesy of Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg, Lauren Rosenthal, Bloomberg, Michelle Ma, Bloomberg and Alexandre Rajbhandari, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

October 03, 2022 — Tiffany Raush & Tanya McGill - ConsensusDocs
During contract negotiations and review, the parties make choices about what risks they are willing to accept and at what cost. But one often overlooked choice—the choice of law applicable to the contract—can undermine carefully negotiated construction contracts and expose contractors to risks they never intended to accept. Choice-of-law provisions are standard provisions in most contracts. These provisions allow the parties to the contract to decide which state’s laws will apply to their contract. Often, choice-of-law in the construction contract is the law of the state where the project is located and there will be no issue. But, if the project is located in an unfamiliar, the owner or prime contractor may prefer the laws of the state where the owner or prime contractor is primarily located over the laws of the state where the project is located. Generally, most states will enforce the parties’ choice of law in a contract. But that may not be the case for construction contracts. States like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Louisiana, and others may prohibit parties from agreeing to the application of another state’s law for construction projects in their states. Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Raush, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Tanya McGill, University of Mississippi School of Law Student, 2023 Graduate (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Raush may be contacted at traush@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Erdogan Vows to Punish Shoddy Builders Ahead of Crucial Election

April 25, 2023 — Selcan Hacaoglu - Bloomberg
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to punish breakers of construction-safety regulations in the wake of February’s deadly earthquakes, a move to distance himself from the devastation brought by tens of thousands of building collapses. “We will squeeze them into a corner,” Erdogan said in an interview with with CNN-Turk television late Wednesday. “It will be included in crimes that can’t be pardoned.” The aftermath of the Turkey earthquakes, which killed at least 50,000 people, has become a major talking point ahead of May 14 presidential elections. Erdogan is looking to extend his two-decade rule and is facing his toughest test yet from a united opposition, and critics say he is responsible for allowing builders to skip safety rules to win support in previous votes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Selcan Hacaoglu, Bloomberg

---

Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY

November 16, 2023 — Jessica Knox - The Dispute Resolver
Company: Lobar, Inc. Email: rachel.clancy@lobar.com Website: www.lobar.com College: York College of Pennsylvania (Bachelor of Science in Marketing, 2001) Graduate School: Florida Institute of Technology (MBA in Acquisition and Contract Management, 2004) Law School: Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law (JD 2007) States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Headquarters are in Dillsburg, PA; construction projects located in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel. A: Before law school, I spent three years as a Contract Specialist writing construction contracts for the Department of Defense, Naval Facilities Command in New Jersey. I had no idea I'd eventually find my way back to construction. After law school, I spent five years in the business department of a local law firm handling corporate formations, a variety of commercial contracts, and learning some real estate law. After another four years in-house with a data and marketing company in Harrisburg, I accepted my current position with Lobar, where I've been for the last seven years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Knox, Stinson LLP
Ms. Knox may be contacted at jessica.knox@stinson.com

---

Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

September 22, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In payment or collection-type lawsuits, the party suing for money sometimes asserts a claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit as an alternative equitable remedy to a breach of contract claim. Frankly, sometimes a party will do this as a means to throw everything against the wall hoping something, just something, sticks. However, if there is a contract by and between the parties, equitable claims such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit will invariably fail. They will fail because a party cannot circumvent a contract simply because their recourse may prove better under an equitable theory. It doesn’t work like that! And, it should not! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---