It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract
March 11, 2024 —
Alan Winkler - ConsensusDocsIt is fairly common for a construction contract to include a provision requiring the contractor to perform some level of review of the plans and specifications and perhaps other contract documents as part of their responsibilities. Typically, this provision is found in a section of the contract on the contractor’s responsibilities, although it can be anywhere. Owners and contractors are, with reason, focused on three main issues in reviewing contracts: (1) price, costs, and payments, (2) time and scheduling, and (3) scope of the work. Eyes may glaze over the contractor’s responsibilities section. Not only does it seem to be boilerplate, but industry professionals know what a contractor is supposed to do; in a nutshell, build the project.
An old school type of contractor may regard this role as strictly following the plans and specifications, no matter what they provide. That could lead to a situation where construction comes to a complete stop because, for example, two elements are totally incompatible with each other. If that happens, the contractor would then turn to the owner and architect to ask for a corrective plan and instructions on how to proceed. That may also be accompanied by a request for more time and money while the problem is resolved. The ‘review the contract documents’ clause is designed to avoid this. It is intended to address an understanding that everyone makes mistakes, even architects and engineers whose job it is to design a buildable, functional project. The clause also addresses the understanding that a contractor is more than a rote implementer of plans and specifications because its expertise in building necessarily means the contractor has expertise in understanding the documents that define the construction and how things are put together.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alan Winkler, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Winkler may be contacted at
awinkler@pecklaw.com
A Trivial Case
November 07, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogConstruction defect cases leading to physical injury are rarely trivial, at least in the eyes of the injured party, but alas sometimes they are as the next case,
Nunez v. City of Redondo Beach, 81 Cal.App.5th 749 (2022), demonstrates.
The Nunez Case
Monica Nunez, Vice President of Finance and Accounting at a restaurant chain and a part-time fitness instructor at a gym, tripped and fell on a public sidewalk in Redondo Beach. Ms. Nunez, who was in her forties, tripped following a group run when her back foot hit a sidewalk slab that was elevated at its highest point approximately 11/16 inches. Ms. Nunez landed on her left knee and right arm and in the process fractured her kneecap and elbow.
Ms. Nunez sued the City of Redondo Beach for her injuries alleging causes of action for dangerous conditions on public property under Government Code section 835, nuisance under Government Code section 815.2, and failure to perform a mandatory duty under Government Code section 815.6.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York
October 28, 2015 —
Patrick Clark – BloombergSo you’re looking for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco, and you have about $2,000 a month to spend. You know the city’s median rent is more than $4,200 a month, but median means half the apartments cost less. Surely there are larger, more expensive apartments pulling up the midpoint.
Perhaps. But there’s a reason Google employees are sleeping in their trucks.
Ninety-one percent of one-bedroom apartments in San Francisco cost more than $2,000 a month. Perhaps more surprising is the number of apartments that occupy the high end of rental rates: In Manhattan, a fifth of one-bedrooms rent for more than $4,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, Bloomberg
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
Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance
October 01, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogEarlier this month, an Illinois federal district court held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a property management company or its owner in lawsuits that included allegations of intentional conduct. The suits accused the owner of concealing financial information from and engaging in a scheme to increase tax liability and decrease profit distributions to a minority owner. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining D&O insurance as part of a comprehensive liability insurance program to protect against potential gaps in coverage that could result from allegations of intentional or knowing acts.
Background
The court in Old Guard Insurance Company v. Riverway Property Management, LLC et al., No. 1:23-cv-01098 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2024) was asked to determine whether Old Guard Insurance Co. was required to defend or indemnify Riverway Property Management LLC or its owner under two commercial general liability policies in relation to state court lawsuits. The lawsuits alleged that Riverway’s owner intentionally and improperly misappropriated funds and that the property management company knowingly and substantially assisted with this wrongful scheme.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?
December 29, 2020 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIf I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?
In general, the answer to the above questions is “Yes”, but only if you meet the following requirements:
- You must only release the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien: There is an important distinction to be made between releasing a mechanics lien and releasing the right to a mechanics lien. Whether you do one or the other will depend on the specific language used in your release. In the case of Santa Clara Land Title Co. v. Nowack and Associates, Inc. (1991) 226 Cal. App.3d, 1558 a “release of mechanics lien” document was recorded TO THE County Recorder’s office which included a statement that the mechanics lien was “fully satisfied, released and discharged”. Based on this language, the court concluded that the mechanics lien claimant had waived its “right” to a further mechanics lien on the same property for the work in question. The court concluded that since the release stated that the claim was “fully satisfied” the right to mechanics lien on the project had forever been waived. The Nowak case can be distinguished from the case of Koudmani v. Ogle Enterprises, Inc., (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1650, where the release of mechanics lien only stated that the mechanics lien was “otherwise released and discharged” and not that it was “satisfied”. Based on the distinction drawn from the two cases, a simple mechanics lien release that only releases the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien should be used. At the following link you will find a proper form to achieve this purpose: https://www.porterlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03PRI-Mechanics-Lien-Release.pdf
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss
January 28, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's bad faith claim based upon the insurer's alleged use of an independent contractor to assess the amount of loss in order to lower the amount paid survived a motion to dismiss. Williamson v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178022 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2013).
The insureds' home was damaged. Chubb, their insurer, retained an independent contractor, Eastern Diversified Services (EDS) to assess the amount of loss. EDS estimated the loss to be $193,270.43, and Chubb paid this amount.
Chubb's standard practice was to conduct damage estimates itself using an estimating program called Symbility. EDS used a different program with a data base creating lower payments for loss. When this was brought to Chubb's attention, Chubb refused to recalculate the plaintiff's estimate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
