Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?
January 17, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAll Class A commercial contractors in Virginia are required to have a minimum level of Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage. As a general rule, this insurance is there for damage to property or persons arising from an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy. Many cases that are litigated relating to coverage for certain events under a CGL policy turn on the definition of “occurrence” and whether the event leading to a request for coverage constitutes an “occurrence.”
A recent case in Fairfax County, Virginia,
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Spalding Enterprises, et al., is just such a case. In the Spalding Enterprises case, the Court considered the following scenario. A homeowner, Mr. Yen contracted with Spalding Enterprises to fix some fire damage at his home. Spalding promised the repairs would be complete in October of 2019. However, after Mr. Yen paid a $300,000.00 deposit, Spalding Enterprises stated that the work would not be completed until November of 2019. Yen then fired Spalding Enterprises and sued for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Spalding Enterprises sought coverage from Erie Insurance for the claim and Erie denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that the events alleged in the Complaint by Mr. Yen did not fall under the definition of “occurrence” in the CGL policy held by Spalding Enterprises.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes
March 02, 2020 —
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley - Construction ExecutivePrivate and public companies spend billions of dollars every year on construction projects. For these projects, time is money, and incorporating the most advantageous legal terms in the construction contract can minimize the number and extent of disputes, and ultimately save money.
It is important to remember that the provisions in construction contracts are negotiable. In a common scenario, the contractor and owner informally agree to the scope of a construction project and its cost. When it is time to reduce the deal to writing, the contractor and owner decide to use an AIA contract that appears to be a standard form. The document looks to be on point, and the parties simply need to fill in a few blanks with the cost and scope-specific information. Presuming that the AIA provisions are mutually protective and beneficial, the parties do not think about altering the “standard” terms. They sign the contract, and the project begins.
Months later, the owner and contractor end up disputing delays on the project, entitlement to various payments, and whether certain aspects of the work are defective. At this point, the parties realize that some of the contract’s terms could have been drafted a bit more favorably—but by that time it’s too late. So remember, construction contracts are negotiable, even provisions within “standard” AIA contracts.
Reprinted courtesy of
Phillip L. Sampson Jr. and Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Sampson may be contacted at phillip.sampson@bracewell.com.
Mr. Whiteley may be contacted at richard.whiteley@bracewell.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief
March 25, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogPerhaps it should come as no surprise, but public entities get special treatment under the law, and when filing a claim against a public entity, in most cases, a claimant is required to file a claim with the public entity before filing suit under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §810 et seq.).
But, as the next case demonstrates, that’s not always the case. In Stronghold Engineering Incorporated v. City of Monterey, 96 Cal.App.5th 1203 (2023), the 6th District Court of Appeals examined whether a public works contractor that alleged an extended overhead claim was required to file a Government Claims Act claim before filing suit when its initial complaint was limited to a claim for declaratory relief.
The Stronghold Case
In December 2015, general contractor Stronghold Engineering Incorporated entered into a construction contract with the City of Monterey for the renovation of the City’s conference center and an adjacent city-owned plaza. The construction contract provided that any modification to the construction contract had to be approved by the City through a written change order. No surprise there.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient
November 24, 2019 —
Newmeyer DillionNewmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, today announced Greg Dillion and the firm were named the 2019 Good Scout Award recipient by the Boy Scouts of America, Orange County Council. Dillion and the firm were recognized at the 38th annual Construction Industry Luncheon on November 18th at Hotel Irvine in Irvine, CA. The award is given to individual/company in recognition of their outstanding character, leadership in their industry and commitment to their community.
"When reviewing the 12 points of the Scout's law, with each point as a goal for every Scout to live up to, the two that stand out the most for me that Greg embodies are that Greg is 'helpful' and Greg is 'brave,'" says Newmeyer Dillion's Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff, who served as Master of Ceremonies for this year's award.
"Greg has the instantaneous willingness to help, and he will make the time to help even when he has no time to do so. Greg never runs and he never backs down. He is the person that we look up to. He never hesitates, and he never blames. He only moves forward. I've been blessed in my life to be around and influenced by some tremendous leaders. Greg is the real deal. The Boy Scouts could not have picked a better man to honor."
Greg Dillion is a founding partner of Newmeyer Dillion. Established 35 years ago, the firm has grown from three attorneys to over 70 in three offices. Along with an active trial and appellate public and private practice, Dillion represents residential and commercial developers and other businesses in complex and high stakes business, insurance, real estate and construction disputes. He also advises on insurance policy placement and review; risk avoidance, transfer and management; and alternative dispute resolution methods, techniques and enforceability.
Dillion is active in the community in which he serves, as a supporter of numerous charities and non-profit organizations like the American Cancer Society, Boys Scouts of America, The City of Hope, Interval House, Joyful Child, The Catalina Conservancy, Orangewood Foundation, The Shea Center, The Catalina Cowboy Heritage Foundation and more. He currently sits on the Board for the Surfing Heritage & Culture Center and the Los Caballeros.
Learn More:
https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/gregory-l-dillion/
https://vimeo.com/374510243/a587df2eaa
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 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 corporate, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs and takes an integrated and holistic approach to its legal representation that propels each clients' vision, mission, culture, operations, peace of mind and bottom line. 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
Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse
August 20, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFaced with a series of policies, earlier ones which did not define collapse, newer policies which did, the court determined there was a possibility of coverage under the older policies which did not define collapse. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100548 (D. Conn. June 15, 2018).
Connecticut courts have faced a rash of collapse cases as a result of cement provided to build house foundations by J.J. Mottes Concrete Co. Many basement foundations built with the concrete have shown cracking and other signs of premature deterioration.
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
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
Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage
February 23, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiRelying upon the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause, the Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that there was no coverage for a pool that popped out of the ground. Bozek v. Erie Ins. Group, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 940 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015).
Following a rainstorm, the insureds reported damage to the swimming pool to Erie. An investigation determined that the heavy rain saturated soils around the pool. This created a significant uplift hydrostatic pressure. The weight of the water in the pool typically prevented the uplift forces, but the pool had been emptied to clean debris making it susceptible to uplift. The pool had a pressure relief valve to prevent uplift, but it was not working properly.
As a result, the pool was damaged to the point that it had to be replaced in its entirety. The heaving of the pool also damaged the concrete slab around the pool, which also had to be replaced.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)
March 06, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelIt is already early in 2022, but several important environmental cases have already been decided by the federal district and federal appellate courts.
THE COURTS OF APPEAL
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al.
On January 10, 2022, the court decided this case, in which Dow and the other defendants attempted to remove a state groundwater contamination lawsuit to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the presence of a significant federal question. Both the federal district court and the appellate court rejected these arguments and remanded the lawsuit to the state court. For many years, Dow and other parties had been engaged in a RCRA hazardous waste cleanup at an industrial site located in Institute, West Virginia. RCRA permits and corrective action authorizations were issued or supervised by EPA. The plaintiffs complained that the groundwater cleanup, insofar as it affected their property, was deficient, which compelled them to supplement the ongoing federal cleanup with a lawsuit based on West Virginia causes of action and unique to their property. After a careful review of the record, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendants were not acting under the “subjection, guidance or control” of the EPA, and therefore the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Moreover, there was no federal question to resolve as the separate state lawsuit did not challenge a CERCLA cleanup nor did it arise from the RCRA remedial measures that had been taken.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
