Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

December 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

February 18, 2020 — Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law News
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

August 31, 2020 — Alexis Crump - Lewis Brisbois
Los Angeles Partner Alexis G. Crump has been recognized with a 2020 Lawyer Monthly "Women in Law Award." In receiving this honor, Ms. Crump joins an elite group of women from around the world who have influenced the legal profession with their experience and expertise. Lawyer Monthly’s "Women in Law Awards" emerged as one of the first industry awards to celebrate the achievements and contributions made by women working globally in the legal sector and in business. Recognizing women at all levels of seniority, the publication seeks to acknowledge the challenges that female legal professionals regularly overcome to serve their clients and perform at their best. “It is an honor to be recognized alongside so many outstanding and accomplished women. I look forward to continuing to support my colleagues in their work and participating in the global network of female attorneys,” Ms. Crump said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Crump, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Crump may be contacted at Alexis.Crump@lewisbrisbois.com

Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

July 25, 2022 — Sarah McBride - Bloomberg
While Elon Musk is publicly making a big deal about moving to Texas and cozying up to the governor, behind the scenes his tunnel-building venture, Boring Co., is wrangling with local authorities in the state over a host of seemingly mundane permitting issues. Since Boring bought land last May to create a research and development center in Bastrop, Texas, a rural area outside Austin, the company has put workers up on mobile homes at the site without authorized sewage facilities, failed to get air and stormwater permits and built a driveway without first getting official approval, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News through a public records request. The company’s dealings with Bastrop are yet another illustration of how Musk’s businesses often push the boundaries of or simply ignore regulations that bind other companies. In recent years his Tesla Inc. restarted production at its Fremont plant in defiance of pandemic rules to stay closed, Boring tried to build a tunnel in Los Angeles without going through an environmental review process and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the disclosure of Musk’s stake in Twitter Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride, Bloomberg

CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

May 17, 2021 — Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction Executive
Direct damage to property under construction caused by faulty or defective work or defective materials has been a coverage issue for decades. Two specific policies, the Commercial General Liability for the contractors building the structure and the Builders Risk Policy on the project both are sources of potential coverage. A CGL policy protects the named insured (the contractor in this case) from third party liability arising out of the insured’s operations that results in either bodily injury or property damage. Damage to property caused by poor workmanship or defective materials would qualify as property damage. To understand how the CGL policy might respond to claims such as these, it is necessary to evaluate several exclusions in the CGL policy. CGL policies cover “property damage,” defined as physical injury to tangible property, including loss of use of such property, and loss of use of tangible property that has not been physically injured. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

February 16, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Answering certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court found there was no coverage for flanges that leaked after installation. U. S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., 2015 Texas LEXIS 1081 (Dec. 4, 2015). U. S. Metals sold Exxon 350 custom-made, stainless steel, weld-neck flanges for use in refineries. Testing after installation showed the flanges leaked and did not meet industry standards. Exxon decided to replace the flanges to avoid risk of fire and explosion. For each flange, this involved stripping the temperature coating and insulation, cutting the flange out of the pipe, removing the gaskets, grinding the pipe surfaces smooth for re-welding, replacing the flange and gaskets, welding the new flange to the pipes, and replacing the temperature coating and insulation. The replacement process delayed operation of the diesel units for several weeks. Exxon sued U.S. Metal for over $6 million as the cost of replacing the flanges and $16 million as damages for lost use of the diesel units during the process. U.S. Metals settled with Exxon for $2.2 million and then sought indemnification from its liability insurer, Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes

August 26, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
In the California building and construction industry, service of a “Preliminary Notice” is a prerequisite for Subcontractor and Supplier claims for payment through the Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice and Payment Bond Claim process. Without proper drafting and service of a Preliminary Notice, these extremely valuable claims cannot be protected. Unfortunately, despite the vital importance of the Preliminary Notice, Subcontractors and Suppliers often make common self-defeating mistakes that make their Preliminary Notice efforts completely ineffective, resulting in loss of their claims rights. The purpose of this article is to list some of these common mistakes in the hope that the reader will avoid such mistakes, preserve the integrity of the Preliminary Notice, and protect the claims rights it makes available: Not Sending out the Preliminary Notice Within 20 Days After Supplying Labor or Materials: The protection of a Preliminary Notice begins 20 days before it sent out. This means that if a Subcontractor or Supplier claimant delivered $100,000 in materials on February 1, that same claimant must serve the Preliminary Notice on or before February 21 (the sooner the better), or the claimant will not be able to pursue an enforceable Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond claim for that $100,000. There are very few exceptions. Best practice: A Subcontractor or Supplier must send out the Preliminary Notice as soon as an agreement to provide work or materials to a California construction project is in place (See California Civil Code 8204). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

January 17, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
All 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES