SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

August 29, 2022 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
While I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims. ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.



The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.



Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.



Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.



However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

March 07, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.



According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.



The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.



Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.



Read Full Story...

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

August 13, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The excess insurer had a duty to defend after the primary carrier improperly refused its defense obligations. IMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13703 (6th Cir. July 15, 2014). IMG was sued for over $300,000,000 for alleged fraud, conversion, civil theft and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (FDUTPA). The lawsuit stemmed from a real estate development project. The plaintiffs had invested in the project and alleged that the developer had sold them undeveloped properties with the promise they would be developed. IMG was a consultant on the project and also licensed to the developer the use of the IMG name and logo in marketing materials. IMG had no contractual obligation to actually develop the property or finance the project. IMG sought coverage from its primary carrier, Great Divide, and from its excess carrier, Westchester. Both denied coverage and refused to defend. 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

---

A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

August 03, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Several interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts. FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes. On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

August 02, 2017 — Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On July 14, 2017, the Trump administration released a statement indicating that the United States intends to sign the U.S. – EU bilateral insurance agreement. The announcement came several weeks after the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorizing the signing of this agreement. The agreement attempts to “level the playing field for U.S. insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU.”[1] This U.S. – EU bilateral agreement is a direct response to EU’s January 2016 enactment of Solvency II. Solvency II is a legislative program implemented in all twenty-eight Member States, aimed at codifying EU insurance regulations in an attempt to protect policy holders and to incentivize risk management. We previously wrote about this comprehensive program of insurer regulatory requirements here. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

---

New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

September 23, 2019 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. TopBuild Home Servs., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69634 (April 24, 2019), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that the “lesser of two” doctrine applies to subrogation actions, thereby limiting property damages to the lesser of repair costs or the property’s diminution in value. In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., New York Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (New York Central) insureds, Paul and Karen Mazzola, suffered a fire to their home. After the fire, New York Central paid the Mazzolas $708,465.74 to repair the property. New York Central brought a subrogation action against TopBuild Home Services, Inc. (TopBuild), alleging that the fire was caused by negligent work performed by TopBuild. New York Central sought to recover the repair costs it paid to the Mazzolas. TopBuild conceded liability but disputed the proper measure of damages. TopBuild filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that under the “lesser of two” doctrine, New York Central could recover only the lesser of the costs to repair the property or the property’s diminution in value. TopBuild, therefore, asserted that New York Central was not entitled to the repair costs of $708,465.74 but, rather, could recover only the property’s decline in value following the fire – approximately $250,000.[1] In response, New York Central argued that New York’s “lesser of two” doctrine does not apply to subrogation actions because an insurance company cannot mitigate the payment it makes to its insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

---

New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge is going to be replaced by the New NY Bridge, but it might be a while in coming. Work has begun, but the project is expected to last most of the next five years. Howard P. Milstein, chairman of the Thruway Authority notes that “the New NY Bridge is the largest transportation infrastructure project in North America and one of the largest construction contracts in New York State history.” The current bridge was designed for 100,000 vehicles daily, or about 38,000 fewer than cross the bridge each day. Maintenance costs have been hundreds of millions of dollars in the last few years. The cost of the new bridge is expected to be less than $4 billion. The initial estimate was that it would cost more than $5 billion to build the new bridge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---