Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute
July 22, 2024 —
Stacy R. Goldscher & Tracy M. Lewis - Wood Smith Henning & BermanHow do you define the term "contractor?" In the case of California Specialty Insulation Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. B324805 (2024), the court ultimately honored the reasonable expectations of the insured and ordered that the insurer defend and indemnify in an underlying suit stemming from the policy. This case involves a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied) to California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI). The central issue is whether Allied World is obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a policy exclusion for bodily injury to employees of any "contractor," a term not defined in the policy.
Factual Background
In 2017 Air Control Systems. Inc. (Air Control) was contracted to perform improvement work at a Los Angeles building and subsequently hired CSI to install duct insulation. In 2019, Jason Standiford, and Air Control employee, filed a negligence lawsuit against CSI, alleging injuries from a 2017 incident where a CSI employee allegedly drove a scissor lift into a ladder Standiford was on, causing him to fall. CSI requested Allied World to defend it in the Standiford lawsuit. Initially, Allied World accepted the defense, but later withdrew, citing the Contractor Exclusion in the policy. CSI filed for declaratory relief, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of CSI, finding the term contractor ambiguous and construing it in CSI's favor. Allied World appealed the decision.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stacy R. Goldscher, Wood Smith Henning & Berman and
Tracy M. Lewis, Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Ms. Goldscher may be contacted at sgoldscher@wshblaw.com
Ms. Lewis may be contacted at tlewis@wshblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers
October 03, 2022 —
Lewis BrisboisSacramento, Calif. (September 2, 2022) - Sacramento Magazine has recognized several partners from Lewis Brisbois' Sacramento office on its List of Top Lawyers of 2022. The list is developed through a peer nomination process, with nominees then evaluated on the basis of survey results, the legitimacy of their licenses, and their standing with the State Bar of California. Qualifying attorneys who then receive the highest number of votes from their peers are included in the list, which is organized by area of practice.
Congratulations to:
- Managing Partner John S. Poulos, recognized for Construction Law and Construction Litigation.
- Partner Paul R. Baleria, recognized for Medical Malpractice.
- Partner Scott E. Bartel, recognized for Securities & Corporate Finance and Securities Litigation.
- Partner Greg L. Johnson, recognized for Banking & Financial Services.
- Partner Eric J. Stiff, recognized for Mergers & Acquisitions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts
July 27, 2020 —
Shaia Araghi - Newmeyer DillionThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused most businesses to temporarily close and, as a result, sustain significant losses. Various states are contemplating the passage of legislation to require carriers to cover claims arising from COVID-19, but case law regarding the constitutionality of such legislation is conflicting. Depending on the facts surrounding retroactive legislation, states may be able to pass an enforceable law leading to coverage.
Pennsylvania’s Proposed Legislation for Business Interruption Losses
Pennsylvania is one of many states that has proposed legislation to override language in business interruption policies and require coverage from insurance carriers. Pennsylvania House Bill 2372 proposes that any insurance policy that covers loss or property damage, including loss of use and business interruption, must cover the policyholder’s losses from the COVID-19 pandemic.1 It applies to insureds with fewer than 100 employees.2 To enhance its chances to pass constitutional challenges, the House Bill also provides for potential relief and reimbursement through the state’s commissioner.3 Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1127 is broader than House Bill 2372 and most bills proposed in other states and would require indemnification for nearly all insureds.4 The Senate Bill makes important legislative findings and notes that insurance is a regulated industry.5 It essentially provides that an insurance policy insuring against a loss relating to property damage, including business interruption, shall be construed to cover loss or property damage due to COVID-19 or due to a civil authority order resulting from COVID-19.1 The proposed bill redefines “property damage” to include: (1) the presence of a person positively identified as having been infected with COVID-19; (2) the presence of at least one person positively identified as having been infected with COVID-19 in the same municipality where the property is located; or (3) the presence of COVID-19 having otherwise been detected in Pennsylvania.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer DillionMs. Araghi may be contacted at
shaia.araghi@ndlf.com
Seyfarth Shaw’s Construction Group Receives Top Tier Recognition from Legal 500
July 05, 2023 —
Alison Ashford, Michael McKeeman, Bennett Greenberg, Meghan Douris, Jason Smith, Michael Wagner & Ryan Gilchrist - The Construction SeyfarthSeyfarth Shaw’s Construction group have achieved a top tier ranking in the highly regarded
Legal 500 United States 2023 edition, solidifying their reputation as one of the nation’s top legal teams. This recognition reaffirms Seyfarth’s unwavering commitment to excellence in Real Estate Construction and Construction Litigation.
The Legal 500 United States guide recognizes Seyfarth’s Construction practice as having a “very deep team with extensive construction knowledge as well as experts in related fields such as government contracting and business organization.” Our team is regarded by clients and peers as “collegial, intelligent, direct and adaptable.” The guide specifically recognizes the firm’s former Construction group chair, Bennett Greenberg, in their Hall of Fame. Alison Ashford, the firm’s current Construction group co-chair, is named a Leading Lawyer and Washington, DC Associate, Michael Wagner, made the Rising Stars list. Other notable mentions include, Michael McKeeman, Construction group co-chair, Jason Smith, Meghan Douris, and Ryan Gilchrist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alison Ashford, Seyfarth,
Michael McKeeman, Seyfarth,
Bennett Greenberg, Seyfarth,
Meghan Douris, Seyfarth,
Jason Smith, Seyfarth,
Michael Wagner, Seyfarth and
Ryan Gilchrist, Seyfarth
Ms. Ashford may be contacted at aashford@seyfarth.com
Mr. McKeeman may be contacted at mmckeeman@seyfarth.com
Mr. Greenberg may be contacted at bgreenberg@seyfarth.com
Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com
Mr. Smith may be contacted at jnsmith@seyfarth.com
Mr. Wagner may be contacted at mewagner@seyfarth.com
Mr. Gilchrist may be contacted at rgilchrist@seyfarth.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Termination Part 3: When the Contractor Is Firing the Owner
August 07, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaLast week we discussed an Owner terminating a Contractor “for cause.” Today, it’s time for a 180: what is your role as the architect when the Contractor is quitting?
First, be aware that there are valid reasons for a contractor to quit within the contract itself. Most of these have to do with either (a) time delays/stand stills or (b) failure of the Owner to make payments as required.
The Contractor can suspend or terminate a contract with the Owner for cause, provided a 7 day written notice is given to Owner and Architect. See A201§14.1.3. (This can be an
email notice as all AIA notice clauses now allow).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!
August 30, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesArbitration is a form of dispute resolution that is a creature of contract. If you want an arbitrator to resolve your disputes, you need to ensure there is an arbitration provision in your contract. There are pros and cons to arbitration. One con is you lose the right to appeal. A couple of pros, however, are that your arbitrator(s), which you generally have some control in the selection of, will be versed in the construction industry and it can be a more efficient forum to resolve disputes in the times of COVID. Once you have your scheduling conference with the appointed arbitrator(s), you will be able to agree upon a set final hearing (trial) time and have milestone dates that work backwards from the final hearing date. This is much more efficient than being placed on an unrealistic trial docket or having to deal with the gamesmanship of motions just to be able to get your case at-issue for trial.
However, the right to arbitrate your dispute can be waived. This was the issue in Leder v. Imburgia Construction Services, Inc., 2021 WL 3177338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), which I will be the first to tell you the ruling is quite baffling to me. In a nutshell, the contractor, by not complying with the submission of a claim to the Initial Decision Maker was found to have waived the dispute resolution provision in the AIA contract. Not sure this makes sense, but this was the ruling.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Rejection’s a Bear- Particularly in Construction
December 23, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs I read through this week’s cases published in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, I came across a case posing an interesting question. The question is, “If your bid is rejected along with everyone else’s, can you complain?” The short answer set out by the Rockingham County, Virginia Circuit Court is “No.” In the case of General Excavation v. City of Harrisonburg the Court looked at the Virginia Public Procurement Act’s bid protest provisions in Va. Code 2.2-4360 and 2.2-4364(C) in the context of General Excavation’s protest of the City’s failure to award it (or anyone else for that matter) the contract on which it was the low bidder. The controlling section of the statute allows a challenge to the award or proposed award of a contract.
In defending the action, the City of Harrisonburg argued that, because the Procurement Act waived some of the city’s sovereign immunity, it must be read strictly. The city further argued (somewhat ironically) that, because no award of the contract was given or even proposed, General Excavation could not bring suit because it would not be challenging the “proposed award or award” of a contract. Not surprisingly, the Rockingham County court held with the City and strictly construed the statute against General Excavation in finding that General Excavation did not have the standing necessary to bring suit under the statute.
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
