The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion
September 28, 2017 —
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion!
Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at
pbw@sdvlaw.com
Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
November 13, 2023 —
Yaron Shaham - Kahana FeldIn order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state.
California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party.
Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Shaham, Kahana FeldMr. Shaham may be contacted at
yshaham@kahanafeld.com
Cherokee Nation Wins Summary Judgment in COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim
February 01, 2021 —
Sergio F. Oehninger, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matt Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a resounding victory for policyholders, an Oklahoma state court granted partial summary judgment for the Cherokee Nation in its COVID-19 business interruption claim. The Cherokee Nation is seeking coverage for losses caused by the pandemic—specifically, the inability to use numerous tribal businesses and services for their intended purpose.
Based on the “all risks” nature of the policy and the fortuitous nature of its loss, the Cherokee Nation sought a partial summary judgment ruling that the policies afford business interruption coverage for COVID-19-related losses. The policy provided coverage for “all risk of direct physical loss or damage,” which the Cherokee Nation contended was triggered when the property was “rendered unusable for its intended purpose.” In support of this view, and consistent with established insurance policy interpretation principles, such as providing meaning to every term and reading the policy as a whole, the Cherokee Nation argued that a distinction must exist between “physical loss” and “physical damage.” This distinction demands an interpretation supporting the “intended purpose” reading of the policy language. Thus, the physical presence of COVID-19 depriving the Cherokee Nation of the use of covered property for its intended purpose triggered a covered loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents
August 13, 2014 —
Marc S. Casarino and Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLPDelaware corporations may be required to turn over internal documents of directors and officers, including those of in-house counsel, where the factors enumerated in Garner v. Walfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) weigh in favor of disclosure. In a July 23, 2014 decision of first-impression, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, that the Garner doctrine applies to plenary shareholder/corporation disputes, as well as to books and records inspection actions under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Garner doctrine provides that a shareholder may invade the corporation’s attorney-client privilege in order to prove fiduciary breaches by those in control of the corporation upon a showing of good cause. The non-exhaustive list of factors by which a finding of good cause should be tested are:
“(i) the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; (ii) the bona fides of the shareholders; (iii) the nature of the shareholders’ claim and whether it is obviously colorable; (iv) the apparent necessity or desirability of the shareholders having the information and the availability of it from other sources; (v) whether, if the shareholders’ claim is of wrongful action by the corporation, it is of action criminal, or illegal but not criminal, or of doubtful legality; (vi) whether the communication is of advice concerning the litigation itself; (vii) the extent to which the communication is identified versus the extent to which the shareholders are blindly fishing; and (viii) the risk of revelation of trade secrets or other information in whose confidentiality the corporation has an interest for independent reasons.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP and
Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion
July 23, 2014 —
Scott Patterson - CD CoverageIn J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
Five LEED and Green Construction Trends to Watch in 2020
January 27, 2020 —
Tommy Linstroth - Construction ExecutiveTo succeed in any field, you can never stop learning—especially in the green construction industry where standards and technology are always growing and changing.
Here are a few of the exciting trends in LEED certification and green construction learned about during this year’s Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, which is the largest annual event for green building professionals in the world.
1. More Transparency About Products
In 2020, the product sustainability information provided by manufacturers will continue becoming more transparent and accessible. Manufacturers are coming to the table and presenting more useful information on environmental and health impacts, conducting life cycle analyses and making the information available for the design and construction marketplace.
Although this means even more information for construction and design teams to take into account when planning green construction projects, it’s a definite positive. We’re starting to see the actual environmental performance getting taken into account in product specification.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tommy Linstroth, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How BIM Can Serve Building Owners
September 17, 2018 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessBuilding Information Models typically end their active life after the construction phase. An experimental project was initiated to find out whether and how they can serve owners throughout the life cycle of a building.
Gradia, the Jyväskylä Educational Consortium, provides education to students of all ages in central Finland. It has around 25,000 students, a staff of 1,100, and buildings with a total floor area of 150,000 square meters. Gradia and a team from Gravicon and XRM Finland carried out a government-supported KIRA-digi experimentation project in 2017 on the use of BIMs for building maintenance and repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted
July 14, 2016 —
Michael B. McClellan & Jason L. Morris – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOn May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law,
creating a private federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. This landmark
legislation, a product of bipartisan backing and significant support from the business
community, will affect businesses and individuals operating in almost every economic sector
across the country. The DTSA will potentially be at issue any time an employee with access to
confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information moves on to a competitor or launches
a startup that competes with the former employer. This will be true so long as the product
or service that the trade secret relates to is either used in or intended for use in interstate
or foreign commerce. Under present commerce clause jurisprudence, the vast majority of
businesses providing products and services in the United States will be affected by this new law.
The DTSA will provide, for the first time, a codified federal civil remedy for
misappropriation of trade secrets. Although most states have adopted some version of the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), there remains significant variation between the states in
their application of the UTSA and litigants face significantly different statutory frameworks
depending upon which state holds jurisdiction over the dispute. In addition, prior to this
new law, litigants were limited to pursuing their claims for misappropriation of trade secrets
in state courts, unless federal diversity jurisdiction applied to the dispute. The DTSA changes
that dynamic, providing original federal subject matter jurisdiction over trade secret disputes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael B. McClellan, Newmeyer & Dillion and
Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. McClellan may be contacted at Michael.mcclellan@ndlf.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at Jason.morris@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
