Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?
December 21, 2016 —
Duane Craig – Construction InformerI’ve often wondered just where the term “punch list” came from, and I’ve found a few sources that seem to make sense, while others not so much.
Enter the Realm of Conjecture and Opinion
One person claims it came from the telephone installer process of “punching down” terminals on a block. That seems a bit of a stretch though. A blog writer said it had to do with the term ‘punch’ since it means to “punch something up” as in fix it.
Another blog writer thought it had something to do with a long forgotten practice. Apparently subcontractors used to each have their own hole punches that would punch a hole with a shape unique to them. They would use these punches to indicate they had corrected the deficiency that was their responsibility.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Duane Craig, Construction InformerMr. Craig may be contacted at
dtcraig@constructioninformer.com
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 5: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery
July 25, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogInsurance policies provide different levels of insurance coverage and even if the amount purchased was adequate at one time, developments over time (e.g., inflation, upgrades, regulatory changes and surge pricing) may leave the policyholder underinsured. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we emphasize the need for policyholders to take a close look at the policy’s terms to select the right type and amount of coverage for a potential loss.
Various types of coverage are available and there has been extensive litigation concerning the amount of coverage provided by one policy form or another. For example, the policyholder may have purchased market value coverage (the value of the house at the time of the wildfire), replacement coverage subject to a policy limits cap, guaranteed replacement cost coverage, or some variation on the theme. While the property may be properly valued when the insurance is purchased, it may become undervalued at the time of loss due to factors like inflation or home improvements that were not disclosed to the insurer. And, however generous the limits may be when the policy is procured, as one court discussed, it may be insufficient when “surge pricing” occurs after a wildfire.
[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
"Multiple Claims" Provisions on Contractor's Professional Liability Policy Creates a Trap for Policyholders
May 24, 2021 —
Michael V. Pepe - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn Berkley Assurance Company v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., 465 F.Supp.3d 370 (S.D.N.Y., 2020), professional liability insurer Berkley sued its insured, Hunt, a construction management firm, seeking a declaration that it did not owe Hunt a duty to defend and indemnify against breach of contract claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Berkley’s motion for summary judgment and denied Hunt’s motion for partial summary judgment. Among other things, the court held that the policy’s automatic extended reporting period did not apply to Hunt’s first claim. The multiple claims provision barred Hunt’s second claim because the claims were related.
The court’s holding creates a potential trap for policyholders who wait to see how a claim develops before reporting it to their insurance carrier. This case demonstrates that waiting to see how a claim develops can result in a loss of coverage. Policyholders need to be aware of this trap and report all claims and circumstances immediately.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Pepe may be contacted at
MPepe@sdvlaw.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits
July 19, 2017 —
Bethany Barrese – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1
The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million.
Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Barrese may be contacted at
blb@sdvlaw.com
Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says
May 05, 2014 —
Alan Levin – BloombergDivisions in Congress over boosting funding for bridge repairs and highway construction are making it difficult to pass a long-term measure in time to prevent a disruption in existing road projects, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said.
“I would say that we have a tough, a tough challenge ahead of us that hasn’t been solved for a long time,” Foxx said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.
The Highway Trust Fund, financed by gasoline and diesel taxes, may soon not be able to meet its financial obligations, according to Foxx’s agency. The Obama administration on April 29 sent legislation to Congress proposing $302 billion for road and mass transit projects over four years, with part of the money coming from new taxes on company earnings overseas.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alan Levin, BloombergMr. Levin may be contacted at
alevin24@bloomberg.net
AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test
February 18, 2020 —
Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLPConstruction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption.
California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor.
Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.
- The subcontract is in writing;
- The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
- If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
- The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
- The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
- The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
- The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in
S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply.
You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the
Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & FearsMr. Dillion may be contacted at
bad@paynefears.com
A Sample Itinerary to get the Most out of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWith so many worthwhile events stretched across three days, as well as wanting to get out and explore the many attractions in Orange County, California, Construction Defect Journal has come up with a sample itinerary that balances work with recreation.
Day One: Wednesday, May 16th
9:00 a.m. – Breakfast at
Steakhouse 55 (Disneyland Hotel)
Meet up with colleagues at Disney’s Steakhouse 55 where you will find a more peaceful and upscale venue, perfect for networking or just catching up with friends.
10:00 a.m. -
Madara Spa at Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel
With a free morning, this is the perfect time to take advantage of one of the Disneyland Resort’s pools or schedule a massage at the Madara Spa located within the Grand Californian Hotel.
11:30 a.m. – Grab and Go Lunch at
The Coffee House (Disneyland Hotel)
Refuel with a salad or sandwich from one of Disneyland Resort’s quick service restaurants.
12:00 p.m. – Seminar Registration and Schwag Hunting
Start heading over to the seminar to register and be one of the first to check out the amazing exhibitors and grab the free items they have to offer. You don’t want to miss BHA’s golf challenge, where if you sink a putt you win a $25 Amazon gift card for yourself and BHA will match the $25 to the worthwhile WCC charities!
1:00 p.m. – Seminar Begins!
The afternoon starts with a not-to-be-missed panel, “Struggles and Successes of the Past 25 Years.” Next, you’ll learn about “Unwrapped and Unraveled - An insightful (or inciteful?) play at the
changing nature of the relationships between the parties in a wrap program who thought the wrap was supposed to take care of everything.”
3:00 p.m. – Afternoon Break
Get a cup of coffee or water, and head out into the exhibit hall. Don’t forget to go to BHA’s booth to enter to win Dodger tickets.
3:30 p.m. – Seminar Panels Continue
The seminar returns with two more amazing panels: “East Coast Meets West Coast –Hot Construction Defect Issues and Coverage Cases from the Other Coast” and “How to Conduct Your Claim Investigation and Early Claims Handling To Avoid Bad Faith Traps.”
6:00 p.m. – Attend an After Party
After taking a few minutes to unwind and freshen up, go and network as well as have some at one of the reception’s thrown by attending firms. No after party? Head over to the
Uva Bar at Downtown Disney for a cocktail and some people watching.
8:00 p.m. - Late Dinner at
Catal Restaurant (Downtown Disney)
Enjoy a relaxing and sumptuous meal at Catal in Downtown Disney, one of the famed Patina Group’s restaurants.
Day Two: Thursday, May 17th
7:30 a.m. – Breakfast in the Exhibit Hall
Take advantage of West Coast Casualty’s free breakfast, and peruse more exhibits. Check out BHA’s data process collection process and discover meaningful cost improvements that translate to reduced billing while providing superior accuracy and credibility.
8:30 a.m. – Seminar Panels
The seminar returns with more panels you won’t want to miss: “Recent Important Appellate Decisions in California, Nevada, and Arizona” and “Litigating In The Western States - A Judge’s Perspective.”
10:30 a.m. – Morning Break
Grab a cup of coffee or water and chat with your colleagues about the panels you just heard.
10:45 a.m. – Seminar Panel
Another important panel to finish the morning, “Subrogation is not the type of intervention I need. How a subrogated insurer affects construction defect matters.”
11:45 a.m. – Award Presentation
Find out this year’s winners of the Ollie, Legend of the Era and Silver Stars.
12:15 p.m. – WCC Luncheon
Network and chat with your colleagues at one of the meals provided by the seminar.
1:30 p.m. – Seminar Panel
Now that you’ve recharged, you’re ready for another incredible WCC panel: “What Comes Around (Sometimes) Goes Around: Dealing with Recalcitrant Carriers.”
2:30 p.m. – Afternoon Break
Stretch your legs in the exhibit hall and get yourself more schwag. Learn about BHA’s expanding market presence and full range of services in Texas, Florida, and across the Southeast United States.
3:00 p.m. – Seminar Panels Continue
Don’t miss the last two panels of the day: “Effective Use of Experts” and “Claims Managers Speak - A Retrospective & Prospective Discussion.”
5:30 p.m. – Cocktail Reception
With your glass of Cabernet, network with colleagues and then try your hand again at BHA’s golf challenge to win an Amazon gift card and earn money for WCC charities.
6:30 p.m. – Hit the Pool or Jacuzzi
Take those tired feet and soak them in one of the Disneyland Resort’s many pools and jacuzzi’s. Or schedule a spa treatment at
Madara in the Grand Californian Hotel.
7:00 p.m. – After Party or Ball Game
Now that you’ve given yourself some time to rejuvenate, you’re ready to meet up with friends and colleagues at one of the after parties and receptions. Or if you’re a sports fan and want a break from work, go cheer on the
Angel’s as they play Tampa Bay.
8:30 p.m. –
Uva Bar
Unless you chose to go to the game, enjoy a late supper and cocktail under the beautiful southern California sky at the Uva Bar in Downtown Disney.
Day Three: Friday, May 18th
7:30 a.m. – Breakfast at the Seminar
Take advantage of another free meal, and take the time to check out more exhibits as the last day of the seminar begins. Don’t forget to enter BHA’s raffle for Dodger tickets!
8:30 a.m. – Breakout Sessions I
Choose between one of three breakout sessions: “Known Knowns and Known: Unknowns, the Ins and Outs of Extrapolation,” “Risk Transfer Alphabet Soup - A twelve year lookback on legislative tinkering with anti-indemnity statutes - where are we now?” or “Florida – Opening Pandora's Box and How to Close It.”
9:30 a.m. – Breakout Sessions II
Three additional breakout sessions to choose from: “An Update on California’s Right to Repair Act, featuring McMillin Albany et al. v. Superior Court,” “Finding Evidence for your Coverage Case,” or “Northwest Insurance Coverage and Extra-Contractual Issues.”
10:30 a.m. – Morning Break
Refuel with coffee or water before the next group of exciting breakout sessions begins.
11:00 a.m. – Breakout Sessions III
You’ll want to go to one of these three breakout sessions: “Subcontractor Wars: The Last AI,” “Mediating the Luxury Single Family Home Construction Defect Case,” or “Creative Solutions to the Florida Problem: Making No Contribution and No State Law Work for You.”
12:00 p.m. – Breakout Sessions IV and the End of the Seminar
The seminar closes with the last trio of breakout sessions: “Everyone is a Small Player,” “Real World Solutions to the Real Problems Presented By Wrap Up Programs,” or “When Mother Nature Attacks, Are you Covered?”
1:30 p.m. – Lunch at
Corn Dog Castle in California Adventure Park OR
Hollinghead’s Delicatessen in Orange
If you’re a Disney lover, you’ll want to take advantage of the day by going to one of the Disney Resort Parks, of course. Get one of Disney’s amazing corn dogs at Corn Dog Castle in California Adventure Park.
Or if you would rather explore the greater Anaheim area, then head over to Hollinghead’s Delicatessen for a homemade sandwich and a glass of beer on tap.
3:00 p.m. –
Disney Entertainment OR Museum Exploring
If you chose to go to California Adventure, check out the event schedule for the day. Catch the show Frozen – Live at the Hyperion or get a
Fastpass for the Radiator Springs Racers and ride Soarin’ Around the World. If you purchased a two-park pass, don’t forget about Space Mountain or Star Tours located in the Disneyland Park.
North Orange county has many interesting museums. Head to the
Bowers Museum in Santa Ana or the
Muzeo in Anaheim.
7:00 p.m. – Dinner at the
Blue Bayou Restaurant OR the
Summit House Restaurant
Have a one-of-a-kind eating experience at the Blue Bayou in Disneyland Park. Enjoy a dinner in the midst of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride! If you wish to remain in the California Adventure Park, try an alfresco dinner at
Wine Country Trattoria or an indoor, upscale meal at
Carthay Circle.
After an afternoon perusing museums, enjoy a truly superb meal with attentive service at one of Anaheim’s premier restaurants, Summit House. Feeling like having some fun rather than a sedate meal? Head over to the
House of Blues in Anaheim for their Party Like It’s 1999! A Prince Tribute Party.
8:30 p.m. – Paint the Night Parade/Together Forever OR The Blind Rabbit Speakeasy
Head over to watch the
Paint the Night Parade at the California Adventure Park or the fireworks display,
Together Forever — A Pixar Nighttime Spectacular at the Disneyland Park. Be sure to check out the daily
event schedule for up to date information.
End your evening at Anaheim’s only speakeasy,
the Blind Rabbit, located in the Anaheim Meat Packing district. Be sure to check out their “rules” and reserve a table at this popular spot.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
