Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA
September 10, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiA complaint lodged against the insureds' broker and FEMA was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Lopez v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109803 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 2014).
The insureds held a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued by FEMA, but sold by the broker. The insureds alleged that their property was totally destroyed by Hurricane Isaac. FEMA paid the insureds $234,513.02 for damage to their dwelling and $80,566.17 for its contents, for a total of $315,079.19. This was $34,920.81 below the policy limits. The insureds sued, claiming FEMA negligently miscalculated their damages, misvalued their property, and improperly adjusted their claim. The insureds also alleged that the broker failed to properly advise them regarding the nature of their coverage, the true value of their property, or to purchase the correct amount of insurance on their behalf.
The negligent procurement claim against the broker failed because the insureds did not allege any specific facts tending to establish that the broker failed to use reasonable diligence in procuring their insurance. Likewise, the negligent misrepresentation claim against the broker was dismissed. Insurance agents had a duty to supply their customers with correct information, and they could be liable for negligent misrepresentation if they provided incorrect information and an insured was damaged. Here, the insureds did not allege a breach of the duty to supply correct information.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim
September 16, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's finding of no coverage and found that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for water damage. 3524 East Cap Venture, LLC, et al. v. Weschester Fire Ins. Co., et al., 104 F. 4th 193 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
Plaintiff 3534 East Cap Venture, LLC, a real-estate developer, hired plaintiff McCullough Construction, LLC, to build a residential and retail complex. Defendants Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Endurance American Insurance Company issued identical builders' risk policies, which covered the building while it was under construction. Each insurer was responsible for half of any qualifying losses.
The policies covered loss caused by or resulting from water damage. The policies, however, excluded loss caused by "dampness of atmosphere" or by "[e]xtremes or changes in temperature." But the exclusions contained an exception if "loss by an insured peril ensues."
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
Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA
August 03, 2022 —
Anne Idsal Austin, Shelby L. Dyl & Sheila McCafferty Harvey - PillsburyTakeaways
- The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
- The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
- The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.
Introduction
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production.
The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury,
Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and
Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury
Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage
May 17, 2021 —
Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction ExecutiveDirect damage to property under construction caused by faulty or defective work or defective materials has been a coverage issue for decades. Two specific policies, the Commercial General Liability for the contractors building the structure and the Builders Risk Policy on the project both are sources of potential coverage.
A CGL policy protects the named insured (the contractor in this case) from third party liability arising out of the insured’s operations that results in either bodily injury or property damage. Damage to property caused by poor workmanship or defective materials would qualify as property damage. To understand how the CGL policy might respond to claims such as these, it is necessary to evaluate several exclusions in the CGL policy.
CGL policies cover “property damage,” defined as physical injury to tangible property, including loss of use of such property, and loss of use of tangible property that has not been physically injured.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogGreat news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation.
New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence
Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims
November 20, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn October 24, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals granted a rare interlocutory appeal in a multi-family residential construction defect case. The Court of Appeals accepted the case ofTriple Crown at Observatory Village Association, Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc.(2013 WL 5761028) as an interlocutory appeal after the parties briefed and obtained rulings from the trial court that compelled the case to binding arbitration in lieu of a jury trial on all issues. The appellate decision of October 24, 2013 did not decide the merits of the case, but discussed the issues to be decided in the eventual merits decision. The significance of the issues presented and the interlocutory nature of this appeal both make this case worth watching for further appellate proceedings.
The core issue in this appeal was the applicability of Colorado’s Uniform Arbitration Act (C.R.S. § 13-22-201, et seq.), based on recorded Declarations filed by the developer. The Declarations mandated that the HOA arbitrate any design/construction disputes with the developer. Immediately prior to suit, the Association sought to amend the Declarations in order to avoid the arbitration process for these claims. The interlocutory appellate issues resulted from the trial court’s order compelling the arbitration over the objections of the Association.
The trial court’s decision was based on a reading of the Colorado Revised Non-Profit Corporation Act (“CRNPC,” at C.R.S. § 7-127-107), which was found applicable to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
William Doerler Recognized by JD Supra 2022 Readers’ Choice Awards
March 14, 2022 —
William Doerler - White and Williams LLPCongratulations to Bill Doerler, Counsel of the Subrogation Group who has been recognized as a
top author in Product Liability in the 2022 JD Supra Readers' Choice Awards. Bill was ranked number 9 out of a pool of approximately 800 authors writing about product liability matters on JD Supra in 2021.
The Readers’ Choice Awards recognize top authors and firms for their thought leadership in key topics read by C-suite executives, in-house counsel, media and other professionals across the JD Supra platform during 2021. These annual awards (now in their seventh year) recognize JD Supra contributors for the visibility and engagement their thought leadership earned among readers in select subjects during the previous 12 months.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Defective Concrete Blocks Spell Problems for Donegal Homeowners
October 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA number of recently built homes in Donegal, Ireland are suffering from crumbing cement blocks used in the construction. This was previously seen in homes in the Leinster Region, and seems to be more widespread than previously thought.
Damien McKay, an engineer who specializes in building litigation noted that the blocks started cracking about five years after the homes were constructed. In some cases, “the actual concrete blocks beneath the plaster can be easily broken and in some occasions with as little effort as rubbing with your fingers.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
