Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss
March 19, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project.
After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage:
"[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion."
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore and
Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Navigate the New Health and Safety Norm With Construction Technology
August 03, 2020 —
Jeremy Larsen - Construction ExecutiveSafety has always been a pressing issue in construction, and as states reopen and construction projects pick up steam once again, the industry will become even more closely scrutinized than before. Construction safety looks a lot different than it did six months ago. In addition to the concerns around keeping workers safe on construction sites, today’s contractors are faced with a whole new category of risk, and with new health and safety measures that may vary by county, state or region. New requirements range from social distancing and limits on the size of crews, to requiring masks and temperature checks for all workers.
OPERATING IN THE NEW NORM
This sudden onset of COVID-19 put otherwise healthy businesses into a state of chaos that, months later, is still hard to navigate. By March of 2020, reports indicated that nearly one-third of construction projects had come to a halt. Now, as the industry emerges, balancing business continuity efforts with trying to get crews back to work and jobsites moving again will no doubt present challenges. New health and safety measures, plus the fact that no one wants to touch paper in the field, will add another layer of administrative and procedural oversight to the construction process. Of course, these measures are absolutely needed, but construction businesses can’t ignore the fact that it changes the very way projects and jobsites are managed. And, without the right tools in place, it may be a bumpy ride.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy Larsen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Larsen may be contacted at
jeremy.larsen@viewpoint.com
Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes
June 22, 2016 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWe have previously reported on the Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes case, in which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a provision in an association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which required declarant consent before an arbitration provision could be amended out of the document. To read the past articles on the case, please review
Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals' Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases and
The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Today, the Colorado Supreme Court granted the association's petition for writ of certiorari, en banc, on the following reframed issues:
Whether the court of appeals erred by holding as a matter of first impression that Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) permits a developer-declarant to reserve the power to veto unit owner votes to amend common interest community declarations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McClain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McClain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims
October 01, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNew York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients.
The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand.
Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Contractors Must Register with the L&I Prior to Offering or Performing Work, or Risk Having their Breach of Contract Case Dismissed
March 27, 2023 —
Jill Guingcangco - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe Washington State Legislature has an interest in protecting the public from “unreliable, fraudulent, financially irresponsible, or incompetent contractors” (RCW 18.27.140), which is why contractors are required to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”) before advertising, offering to do work, or performing any work as a contractor. RCW 18.27.020. Accordingly, if a contractor brings an action for the collection of compensation or sues for breach of contract for work they performed, that individual is required to allege and prove that, at the time they performed the work, they were a registered contractor. RCW 18.27.080.
In
Dobson v. Archibald,1 Dobson worked as a longshoreman, but also simultaneously performed home repair work for pay during her off time. Dobson never registered as a contractor with L&I. Dobson acquired customers for her home repair work through a referral process. Dobson was referred to Archibald through a mutual friend who Dobson performed some home repair work for. Archibald subsequently hired Dobson to refinish the hardwood floors in Archibald’s home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jill Guingcangco, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Guingcangco may be contacted at
jill.guingcangco@acslawyers.com
24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs
June 18, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF24/7 Wall St., using data from RealtyTrac, “identified the county-level housing markets that have recovered the most from the housing crisis as of March of this year.”
Number eight on the list was Weld County, Colorado, which had a percentage change of 11.1% and an unemployment rate of only 6.5%. Next on the list, was San Francisco County. The California county had a percentage change of 15.3% and an unemployment rate of 5.2%. Making number one on the list was Jefferson County, Kentucky, with a percentage change of 63.1% and unemployment rate of 8.1%.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award
November 10, 2016 —
Victor R. Anderson, III – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPartner Victor R. Anderson, III received the Peter Perlman Service Award in recognition of his efforts to improve the lives of others through his community service and charity work. The awards are presented to select attorneys throughout the year by the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA) to candidates whose exemplary contributions merit commendation.
The Litigation Counsel of America is a close-knit, peer-selected, and aggressively diverse honorary society of 3,500 of the best trial lawyers. Less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers, vigorously vetted for skills, expertise, and service are invited to be on the Counsel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victor R. Anderson, III, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Anderson may be contacted at
vanderson@hbblaw.com
Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied
October 26, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiDespite barring the insured's expert witnesses from testifying as to the cause of the loss, lay witnesses were still available, making the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer improper. Greater Hall Temple Church of God v. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21934 (11th Cir. July 15, 2020).
Hurricane Matthew damaged the Greater Hall Temple Church of God's (Church) roof. Leaks occurred, causing water damage to the Church's interior. A claim was submitted to Southern Mutual. The policy did not cover loss caused by water. Nor did it cover loss to the interior of buildings unless the rain entered through openings made by a specified peril. An independent adjuster found that the damage was caused not by wind, but by pre-exisiting structural issues. Southern Mutual denied the claim.
The Church filed suit. Southern Mutual moved for summary judgment and also moved to strike three of the Church's expert witnesses. The district court agreed that none of the witnesses could qualify as experts. Two of the witnesses did not have the requisite experience nor had they used a sufficiently reliable methodology formulating their opinions. A third expert was barred because his expert opinion had not been timely disclosed. Thereafter, Southern Mutual's motion for summary judgment was granted because the Church had not provided admissible evidence that damage to the Church's roof was caused by Hurricane Matthew.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
