New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder
May 16, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine, Kevin V. Small & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogNL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry
July 06, 2020 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia recently issued an opinion that should get the attention of any contractor or subcontractor performing work on a federal funded construction project. In U.S. ex rel IBEW Local 98 v. The Fairfield Company, the federal court held that a contractor on a SEPTA project could be held liable under the False Claims Act for failing to pay its workers under the Davis Bacon Act. The court found that liability was appropriate under the FCA even through the contractor did not knowingly violate the Davis Bacon Act. The court awarded the plaintiff over $1,000,000 in damages and an additional over $1,000,000 in attorneys fees.
An Extremely Brief Primer on the FCA
A full discussion of the FCA is beyond the realm of this blog post and you could write a book on FCA cases. But in a nutshell, the FCA prohibits a contractor from knowingly submitting a claim for payment to the federal government (or an entity receiving funding from the federal government, like SEPTA) that is false. Importantly, knowingly does not equal actual knowledge of the falsity of the claim. Rather, “reckless disregard of the truth or falsity” of the submission is sufficient. As explained below, this standard played an important role in the court’s decision and should give contractors performing work on federally funded projects pause.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
COVID-19 Response: Recent Executive Orders Present Opportunities for Businesses Seeking Regulatory and Enforcement Relief and Expedited Project Development
June 15, 2020 —
Karen C. Bennett, Jane C. Luxton & Amanda L. Tharpe - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (June 8, 2020) - Two recent Executive Orders (EO) aimed at promoting economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis offer regulatory and enforcement relief and encourage agencies to expedite infrastructure project approvals. The May 19, 2020 EO 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” directs agencies to determine whether previous regulatory reforms would promote economic recovery if made permanent and encourages compliance assistance through exercising enforcement discretion, including declining enforcement. And the June 4, 2020 EO 13927, “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities,” aims to speed up the permitting process for infrastructure projects to strengthen the national economy. As businesses look to move forward and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, they should closely review these EOs for opportunities to take advantage of streamlined treatment and faster project approvals.
EO 13294 supplements the Administration’s efforts to address the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging federal agencies to rescind, modify, waive, or provide exemptions from federal regulations that may inhibit economic recovery and to provide guidance to businesses, particularly small businesses, on what is required of them under federal law for reopening. Specifically, the EO directs agency heads to identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery and consider rescinding or waiving those regulations, exempting regulated entities from compliance, exercising enforcement discretion, or extending regulatory compliance and enforcement deadlines. It also allows for compliance assistance through accelerated regulatory procedures to receive a pre-enforcement ruling and directs agencies to assess previous regulatory reforms to determine whether making them permanent would promote economic recovery. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has made regulatory reform a cornerstone of its agenda. This Executive Order is a continuation of the aggressive steps taken by the Administration to reduce the regulatory burden faced by American businesses that many argue increases operating costs, inhibits job creation, and stifles economic growth.
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys
Karen C. Bennett,
Jane C. Luxton and
Amanda L. Tharpe
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Tharpe may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend
February 28, 2022 —
Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company1 benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion applies in order to trigger the insured’s duty to defend. However, while the policyholder may use extrinsic evidence to establish the insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer may not use extrinsic evidence to deny that duty.
The facts of the underlying claim are set in the 2000s when the insured subcontractors worked to build thousands of homes in Nevada. The subcontractors were insured by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) during that period. After the homes were complete, the subcontractors switched from Zurich to Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”). Between 2010 and 2013, homeowners brought claims against the subcontractors alleging that the properties were damaged due to construction defects. The subcontractors tendered the claims to Zurich as the insurer at the time of construction. Zurich then sought defense and indemnification from Ironshore. Ironshore denied coverage under a “continuing and progressive” policy exclusion, claiming that the property damage occurred due to faulty work that predated the Ironshore policy. Notably, an exception to the exclusion applied if “sudden and accidental” property damage occurred within the Ironshore policy period. Given that the underlying lawsuits did not include specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred, Ironshore and Zurich disagreed on whether the exception to the exclusion was triggered..
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Barrese may be contacted at
BBarrese@sdvlaw.com
Nine Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Recognized as Southern California Super Lawyers
February 11, 2019 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that nine of its Newport Beach attorneys have been selected to the 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than 5 percent of lawyers are selected to receive this honor.
Attorneys named to the Southern California Super Lawyers list include:
Michael Cucchissi
Jeff Dennis
Greg Dillion
Joseph Ferrentino
Charles Krolikowski
John O'Hara
Jane Samson
Michael Studenka
Paul Tetzloff
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse
October 28, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company (No. B261172, filed 10/21/15), a California appeals court held that coverage for collapse in a homeowners policy does not extend to prophylactic repairs undertaken to mitigate damage before actual collapse of the structure.
In Grebow, the insureds had a general contractor inspect the rear deck of their house because of recurring watermarks. The contractor discovered severe decay in the steel beams and poles supporting the second floor of the house. He opined that they could not support the upper portion of the house, and that a large portion of the house would fall. A structural engineer agreed, blaming decay and corrosion. The insureds were advised not to enter the top part of the house, and they contracted for repairs. They also made a claim to Mercury, which denied coverage. The insureds ultimately spent $91,000 out of pocket having the home remediated.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)
September 05, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender & Marcus Manca - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and it has rarely been amended or revised since then. NEPA is basically a procedural statute which requires Federal permitting authorities, before a major federal project is approved, to carefully consider the significant environmental consequences of the proposed federal action. NEPA has been employed to conduct a probing review of wide variety of federal projects and actions, and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated a comprehensive set of rules and guidance documents that must be followed or consulted. (See 40 CFR Section 1500 et seq.) The first set of NEPA rules was issued in 1978, and very little was done to bring the rules up to date until 2020. The first phase of this review has been completed, and a second and final phase will soon be underway. The NEPA review process includes the use of “categorical exclusions,” environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to measure the environmental impact of a proposed project. Over time, the rules and their implementation and judicial interpretation have become ever more complex, and an enormous body of NEPA case law has resulted.
The recent Congressional debt limit deliberations provided an opportunity to revise some of these procedures, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law on June 3, 2023, included at Title III, a section devoted to “Permitting Reform.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury and
Marcus Manca, Pillsbury Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects
February 07, 2018 —
Craig Wallace – Smith Currie McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728)
The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit.
Background
Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair.
The trial court, relying on
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The
Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with
Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act.
The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving
Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Wallace, Smith CurrieMr. Wallace may be contacted at
swwallace@smithcurrie.com
