Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim
October 20, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found no coverage for the insured developer after water intruded into the homeowners' basements. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cleland Homes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108030 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2016).
The underlying complaint alleged that the subdivision was designed to create a run off of ground water onto the lots where Cleland built plaintiffs' homes. The design of the subdivision and construction of the homes was defective in that the plaintiffs' homes were situated so that the water table underneath their homes was so high that their basements flooded and damage occurred to the structure of their homes. Cleland was allegedly negligent in designing and/or constructing the homes or negligent in the water drainage plan for the subdivision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss
December 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiRefusing to give the sublimit in a flood policy an expansive reading, the court found that the sublimit did not apply to business interruption loss. Federal-Mogul Corp. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137394 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2015).
The insured's facility in Thailand was damaged by flood. The parties stipulated that the insured suffered a loss of $64,500,000, which included $39,406,467 in property damage and $25,093,533 in time element loss (i.e., economic loss due to an inability to operate normally). The insurer paid $30 million, stating that the High Hazard flood zone provision in the policy limited the amount owed under the policy.
The insured argued the High Hazard sublimit applied only to physical loss or damage caused by the flood, and not to time element loss. Therefore, the insured was entitled to judgment on its time element loss claim for $29,093,533. The insurer argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the High Hazard sublimit applied to all loss caused by flood, including time element loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”
February 10, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiJeff City Industries was the general contractor for a sewer system improvement project in Branson, Missouri. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. United HRB Gen. Contractors, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145666 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2011). Branson sued Jeff City, alleging breach of the construction contract for the project. The claims included improperly bedded sewer piping, improper aligning portions of trenching for the sewer piping, improper service line connections to the sewer piping, etc.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects
April 11, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhile the insured's faulty work constituted an occurrence under Florida law, a prior occurrence exclusion barred coverage. Pro-Tech Caulking & Waterproofing v. TIG Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12319 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2022).
Pro-Tech was a waterproofing subcontractor for construction of a oceanfront condominium building and was responsible for the installation of waterproofing systems on the Project. Pro-Tech entered into a separate contract with the developer, BRE Point Parcel, LLC to install a traffic coating on the garage floors.
BRE sued the general contractor, Pro-Tech and others for construction defects. The underlying action alleged that Pro-Tech, among other things, failed to wrap the filter fabric to protect the weep holes, improperly installed sealants between the stucco and the underside of the horizontal tile at the balcony slab edge, and failed to properly install traffic coating in one garage. The underlying complaint did not state exactly when the "property damage" resulting from Pro-Tech's alleged defective work occurred.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction
December 20, 2021 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogLast year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”).
“Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers
December 27, 2021 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationFor over twenty years, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell has embodied and exemplified the principles of service and stewardship. In everything we do, we focus on serving our clients selflessly and to the best of our ability. In doing so, we always have in the forefront of our minds our obligation to act as the stewards of our clients’ trust, confidences, and resources. The firm itself, along with Carin Ramirez (in the area of Litigation - Insurance), and Dave McLain (in the area of Construction) were all recognized in this year's edition of the U.S. News Best Lawyers Journal. We could not be more proud of the firm we have created, or the service we are able to provide to Colorado's construction industry and its insurers.
Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought
January 15, 2019 —
Trevor B. Potter - Construction ExecutiveOwners and contractors frequently treat liquidated damages provisions as an afterthought, but they deserve to be treated as a key deal term. If a contractor breaches a contract by failing to complete the work in a timely manner, the remedy is typically an agreed upon amount or rate of liquidated damages.
Liquidated damages provisions seldom get more than a cursory, “back of the napkin” analysis, or worse, parties will simply plug in a number. This practice is dangerous because liquidated damages typically represent the owner’s sole remedy for delay and, more importantly, they are subject to attack and possible invalidation if certain legal standards are not met. The parties to a construction contract should never agree to an amount of liquidated damages without first attempting to forecast and calculate actual, potential damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
