COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

August 27, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The homeowners' assigned claims against the general contractor's insurer were barred by business risk exclusions in the CGL policies. W. Heritage Ins. Co. v. Cannon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101382 (E.D. Wash. July 24, 2014). The Cannons contracted with Cook Custom Homes to build their home. Cook never hired a soil engineer. The lot was excavated and the basement foundation was back-filled. When the Cannons moved in, they noticed cracks throughout the foundation, basement slab, ceilings and driveway. The Cannons' home was rendered uninhabitable. The Cannons sued Cook. Cook agreed to a confession of judgment and assignment of its rights against Western Heritage, who defended Cook under a reservation of rights. Western Heritage filed an action for declaratory judgment. 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

---

Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to KMOV News, Raineri Construction Company in Missouri filed suit against the Local Carpenters’ District Council claiming employees had been “stalked and threatened” by the union. However, the Carpenters Union “denies the allegations” and said “it has the right to protest against a company that doesn’t always meet the union standards for pay and benefits.” Tony Raineri, one of the construction company’s executives, said to KMOV News: “For me it wasn’t such a big deal until they started making threats of bodily harm, started following me and my wife to our home, started following my employees to their homes.” KMOV News reported that a “union representative told News 4’s Craig Cheatham that no one acting on behalf of the Carpenters Union ever threatened, harassed or stalked Raineri, his employees or their clients.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

April 20, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are literally some (or, perhaps, many!) disputes that will make you say “hmm!” The “hmm” is a euphemism for “what is a party thinking?!?” The case of Trump Endeavor 12 LLC v. Fernich, Inc., 42 Fla. L.Weekly D830a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) is one of these cases because a party (the owner) is banking its defense on a technical “all-or-nothing” argument pertaining to whether a lienor (a supplier) substantially complied with Florida’s Lien Law because a supplier’s Notice to Owner identified the wrong general contractor. This is a challenging argument because the owner has to prove how they were adversely affected / prejudiced by the lack of substantial compliance, which is not an easy burden. This case concerns the Trump National Doral Miami project. The project consisted of a lodge project and a separate clubhouse project, both of which had different general contractors. On the lodge project, the general contractor hired a painter which, in turn, procured paint from a supplier (the lienor). The supplier visited the project and obtained the Notice of Commencement from the owner so that it could perfect its lien rights. The owner furnished the supplier the Notice of Commencement for the clubhouse project that had a different general contractor. Relying on this Notice of Commencement, the supplier served a Notice to Owner. The Notice to Owner was timely serviced however it identified the wrong contractor – it identified the general contractor for the clubhouse project instead of the lodge project. Although the supplier later learned there was a different general contractor on the lodge project, it did not remedy the issue by serving a Notice to Owner on the correct contractor. Indeed, the contractor for the lodge project learned of the Notice to Owner furnished by the supplier and that the supplier was furnishing paint to the painting subcontractor for purposes of that project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

August 31, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Santa Fe Braun v. Ins. Co. of North America (No. A151428, filed 7/13/20), a California appeals court relied on Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 215 (Montrose III), to hold that absent express policy wording to the contrary, horizontal exhaustion of all primary insurance is not required in order to trigger first-layer excess coverage. Beginning in 1992, Braun was sued for asbestos injuries from refineries it constructed and maintained. Braun had primary coverage and multiple layers of excess coverage for the relevant time period. After defending for years, the primary insurers reached a settlement under which they paid their limits into a trust which would fund the ongoing defense and settlements. Certain of the excess insurers settled and also contributed to the trust. 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

HOA Foreclosure Excess Sale Proceeds Go to Owner

August 15, 2022 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Over the last few years, the Arizona Court of Appeals wrestled with the question of who should receive the excess proceeds from a foreclosure sale. We’ve blogged about some these past unreported decisions here and here. Those decisions, somewhat inexplicably, required excess sale proceeds to be paid to senior creditors. As we noted at the time, these unreported (and non-precedential) decisions did not seem to make much sense in the context of debtor/creditor rights. Thankfully, a reported opinion finally sets the record straight. Excess sale proceeds should be paid downstream. In Tortosa Homeowners Assoc. v. Garcia, et al., No. 2 CA-CV 2021-0114 (Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2022), the Court of Appeals held that after the foreclosing lienholder is paid in full, then the excess sale proceeds should be paid to claimants in the order of their priority after the foreclosing lienholder. In other words, if a junior lienholder forecloses, then any creditors behind (i.e., junior to) the foreclosing creditor should be paid, and if all such creditors are paid, then the rest should be given to the owner. Creditors senior to the foreclosing creditor should not be paid anything from the foreclosure sale. This makes sense from a policy perspective, because the senior creditor retains its lien against the property and the bidder presumably took the presence of the senior lien into account when it made its bid for the foreclosed property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

---

Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

April 17, 2019 — Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that settlements between an insured and its subcontractors qualified as “other insurance” to the extent those settlements were used to pay for damages covered by an excess insurance policy. Policyholders should note the outcome of this case as it demonstrates the significant impact that settlements can have on coverage. Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.1 was the result of a construction project gone wrong. Zapata County, Texas hired Satterfield & Pontikes (“S&P”) as a general contractor for the construction of a courthouse building. When the project did not go as planned, Zapata County terminated S&P, hired new subcontractors to complete the project, and sued S&P. S&P, in turn, sought indemnification from its subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to indemnify S&P and procure insurance for any damage the subcontractors caused at the project. S&P also sought coverage from its own primary insurers, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”), and its excess insurer, U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) who provided liability coverage for S&P’s potential liabilities at the project. The policies contained exclusions for losses arising from mold and did not provide coverage for attorney’s fees or similar legal costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

---

Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Martha Johnson, the head of the General Services Administration, has said that her agency will not be building any new buildings in the near future. Among other duties, the GSA is responsible for the building, renovating, and leasing of federal office space. The White House had proposed $840 million in new construction, the Senate only $56 million. The House did not appropriate any money for the agency to use for new construction.

In addition to cutbacks on new buildings, Congress is suggesting only $280 million in repairs of existing government buildings. In order to cut back, the GSA has dropped plans to renovate their own offices in favor of renovations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration.

Read the full story…

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

---

Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

August 03, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---