Hunton Insurance Group Advises Policyholders on Issues That Arise With Wildfire Claims and Coverage – A Seven-Part Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series
June 27, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWildfires destroy millions of acres a year in the United States, spewing smoke across much of the nation. The cost of damage alone over the past several years soars into the hundreds of billions. As wildfires continue to spread, particularly as we enter wildfire season, policyholders’ claims will rise and with that, so too will wildfire insurance coverage issues. Many believe that when a fire damages their property and/or interrupts their business operations, a claim gets submitted and is automatically paid; sadly, this is often not the case.
In a seven-part series delving into issues relating to wildfire insurance coverage, the Hunton insurance group provides a comprehensive understanding of the types of policies that may be available, legal and factual issues that may arise, and steps policyholders can take – both in advance and during the claims process – to maximize recovery. The following issues will be addressed:
- Part One: Types of Wildfire-Related Losses and the Policies That May Provide Coverage
- Part Two: Coverage for Smoke-Related Damages
- Part Three: Standard Form Policy Exclusions
- Part Four: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses
- Part Five: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery
- Part Six: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations
- Part Seven: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim
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
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Medical Arts Hospital in Lamesa, Texas has settled a lawsuit against its general contractor, roofing contractor, and two insurance companies for $3.7 million, over alleged construction problems. Ray Stephens, president of the hospital’s board said, “we got enough to fix the major problems and that was our goal in the beginning.” With the settlement, the lawsuit has been dismissed by the court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death
August 19, 2015 —
Chris Dolmetsch & David M. Levitt – BloombergNew York’s building boom has spurred the formation of a task force to probe corruption in the construction industry.
The group of prosecutors and inspectors plan to go after companies that ignore or hide safety violations or commit other crimes including bid rigging and extortion.
The formation of the task force was announced the same day two men and their companies were indicted for causing a worker’s death in April by failing to address repeated warnings about safety at a construction site in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg and
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Disruption: When Did It Start and Where Will It End?
June 25, 2019 —
Brian Gallagher - Construction ExecutiveIf change is the only constant—as was famously observed by a Greek philosopher circa 500 B.C.—then why single out some changes as “disruption”?
Disruption is about more than just technology; it’s about more, even, than the rapid rollout and development of technology in the past couple of decades. The word disruption refers to processes or products that are fundamentally different from what is currently in use and that render unforeseen, large-scale changes. Early discussions of disruption (the term was coined by Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen in a 1995 Harvard Business Review article) compared incremental change in existing systems, which are usually supported by established corporations, to innovations that start out as something completely fresh, limited in their appeal and flawed in initial iterations.
The construction industry was—and still is—late to adopt most technologies and late in experiencing overall disruption. It also lags behind other industries when it comes to efficiency and productivity. McKinsey reported that construction is one of the “least digitized industries in the world,” despite employing approximately 7% of the world’s working-age population and representing one of the world economy’s largest sectors. Disruption is likely to be fast approaching now, even for the construction industry. But its delay may confer the benefit of allowing construction companies to learn from other industries’ mistakes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Gallagher, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?
September 25, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAll of us in construction have run into mandatory arbitration clauses in our contracts. These clauses are more or less desirable based upon the size of project and other factors that will provide a topic for another post here at Musings or in my class at Solo Practice University (and likely both).
In drafting and considering the usefulness of these clauses, make sure that you keep in mind that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to actions in federal court. In short, the FAA gives parties to a contract containing an arbitration clause the absolute right to a stay of a law suit pending arbitration.
While this seems obvious, a recent U. S. Supreme Court decision expanded the universe of people that can demand such a stay. In Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, et. al., the Court stated that any person who is allowed to enforce a contract under state law can obtain such a stay. In short, if a person can make an argument that they have some sort of right to enforce a contract’s terms, that person can get a stay, at least until a court says otherwise.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation
August 28, 2023 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling & Andrew S. Koelz - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWe
recently posted about Nevada becoming the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what is called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit.
In response to uncertainty and industry concern about the potential effects the new law may have on the state’s insurance marketplace, Nevada’s Division of Insurance issued an Emergency Regulation and Guidance to Insurers on the new law to minimize disruption to the marketplace. After noting that the new law “has the potential to eliminate or greatly reduce the availability of certain policies of liability insurance and significantly increase their costs, which will affect all types of Nevada businesses, non-profit entities, and state and local governments,” Nevada’s Division of Insurance addressed three issues relating to the new law in the Emergency Regulation:
- The meaning of the term “policy of liability insurance,” as used in the new law.
- The insurers to which the new law does not apply.
- How defense coverage is required to be made available.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Andrew S. Koelz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Koelz may be contacted at akoelz@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors
September 13, 2021 —
Andrew Balland - ConsensusDocsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently decided two cases that are relevant to many disappointed offerors considering a bid protest. One decision rendered in March 2021 confirmed the authority of the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) to hear a protest based on an agency’s breach of an implied-in-fact contract. A second decision issued in February 2021 reversed a COFC decision from last year regarding the timeliness requirements to obtain a CICA stay and their interplay with Department of Defense (DoD) enhanced debriefing regulations.
Federal Circuit Confirms The Court Of Federal Claims’ Jurisdiction Over Procurement-Related Implied Contract Claims
When a contractor’s bid protest is denied by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the unsuccessful protestor may challenge the GAO’s decision as arbitrary and capricious in an action before the COFC. While 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) authorizes the COFC to hear such procurement-related challenges, § 1491(a) also permits the court to adjudicate claims against the United States based on any express or implied contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Balland, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP
