The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere have been changes recently in how courts interpret commercial general liability policies. Writing for Claims Journal, Burke Coleman, who is legal counsel and Compliance Manager for Demotech, looks at five recent cases and how they show changing views of CGL policies and construction defect claims.
He notes that the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that “defective construction itself does not trigger coverage.” The court’s view in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. was that a CGL policy does not protect contractors from every risk, but instead covers damage to other property that occur due to its work.
But, conversely, the Georgia Supreme Court found that construction defect claims could be covered under a commercial general liability policy, noting that “the limits of coverage do not have to be found in the word ‘occurrence,’ inasmuch as the other words of the insuring agreement — as well as the policy exclusions — have their own roles to play in marking the limits of coverage.” This decision was reached in Taylor Morrison Services v. HDI-Gerling America.
The Connecticut Supreme Court also concluded that defective construction could trigger coverage from a CGL policy, however, as Mr. Coleman notes, “only damage to non-defective property may be entitled to coverage.” He concludes that the North Dakota Supreme Court “has taken an even broader approach to the issue.” That court found that construction defects were covered “if the faulty work was unexpected and unintended.”
Finally, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that faulty work can be property damage. He notes “the policy at issue included a ‘your work’ exclusion that excluded coverage for work performed by the insured, but subcontractors were excepted from the exclusion.” However, another clause excluded work performed on the behalf of the insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party
November 18, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe plaintiff insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that defendant insurer was obligated to defend a non-party as an additional insured was granted. Am Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2019 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 4145 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2019).
Quality Building Construction, LLC was the contractor hired to work on exterior facade of a building owned by Central Park West Corporation. The underlying complaint alleged that Quality caused plastic spacers and pedestals used for the penthouse terrace to fall down the roof drain riser. A clog and rainwater backup resulted in water damage to apartment 8A. The resulting damage was allegedly due to the clogged roof drain riser.
Quality subcontracted the work to Mega State, Inc. The subcontract required Mega to indemnify and hold Quality harmless against claims in connection with Mega's work, as well as name Quality as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory bases under Mega's CGL policy. Burlington issued a policy to Mega naming Quality as an additional insured. American Empire issued a CGL policy to Quality.
Quality was sued in the underlying action, but Mega was not. American Empire tendered a demand for coverage to Mega and Burlington, relying on the agreement between Quality and Mega. Burlington responded that Mega was not liable for the alleged damages. American Empire sued Burlington. Subsequently, Burlington accepted the tender to defend Quality in the underlying action, and reserved rights as to whether Burlington's policy was primary and on the question of indemnification. American Empire agreed to withdraw its suit if Burlington would modify its reservation of rights. Burlington refused.
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
Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them
July 06, 2020 —
Charlie Kimmel - Construction ExecutiveThe economic downturn in 2008 created a black hole of talent in the construction industry. As a result, finding project managers between the ages of 28 and 33 and superintendents between the ages of 23 and 30 in today’s market can be difficult, if not impossible in some cases. To make up for this gap in available talent, construction executives are going to have to look to project managers and superintendents in the 58-to-64 age range. Fortunately, there are numerous benefits to hiring older workers.
1. OLDER WORKERS WANT TO MENTOR THE NEXT GENERATION.
This is their most significant benefit: the older generation truly enjoys teaching younger construction workers and passing on skills and knowledge, while also getting to do a job they’re good at. This means investing in one experienced worker today can pay dividends for the quality of a company’s workforce for decades to come, as mentorship programs have proven to increase the skills and loyalty of younger workers. If a company wants someone with deep knowledge and broad experience to help mold the next generation of construction workers, they should hire an older employee.
Reprinted courtesy of
Charlie Kimmel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge
July 23, 2014 —
Chris Dolmetsch – BloombergThe New York City Police Department is trying to figure out who replaced the American flags that fly atop the Brooklyn Bridge with white banners.
The replacement flags were discovered this morning on the towers at opposite ends of the bridge, where the Stars and Stripes are normally displayed, and were removed, police said.
The NYPD’s Counterterrorism Bureau and Emergency Service Unit are probing the incident and reviewing surveillance video to determine who replaced the flags and when the act took place, police said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch, BloombergMr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at
cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net
EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register.
Background
As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency.
In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases
November 26, 2014 —
Jerrold P. Anders & Tonya M. Harris – White and Williams LLPIn Krauss v. Trane US Inc., 2014 Pa. Super. 241, --- A.3d --- (October 22, 2014), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a witness affidavit does not create a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment when it reflects only a presumption and belief that certain products contained asbestos. Moreover, when an affidavit fails to demonstrate plaintiff’s frequent, regular, and proximate exposure to a specific defendant’s asbestos-containing product, summary judgment will be granted.
The Executor of the Estate of Henry M. Krauss filed two lawsuits against forty-nine defendants in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Krauss, a bricklayer from 1978 to 1983, was occupationally exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma. Various defendants moved for summary judgment based on insufficient product identification. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the co-worker affidavits failed to show that: (1) Mr. Krauss worked in proximity to the defendants’ products; (2) the products contained asbestos during the relevant period; or (3) Mr. Krauss inhaled asbestos fibers from the products.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and
Tonya M. Harris, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Harris may be contacted at harrist@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSarah Schottenstein purchased a New York condo for $1.65 million, and claimed that “she wound up getting a moldy, mouse-infested mess,” according to DNAinfo New York. Schottenstein alleged that “within a month of moving in she found her apartment was infested with mice, had toxic mold growing beneath her floors, brown water coming from the tap and leaks from the ceiling, according to court documents.”
According to DNAinfo New York, “Microecologies Inc., an environmental health firm, found 'very heavy levels' of the infectious mold Aspergillus Chaetomium under the floor of Schottenstein's apartment.”
However, Larry Pittinsky, an attorney for the condo board, told DNAinfo New York that “the case was "about a woman trying to escape her obligation to pay money.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds
March 30, 2020 —
Ben Williams & MG Surety - Construction ExecutiveAs COVID-19 continues to expand around the United States and the world, it may only be a matter of time before U.S. construction projects are affected by the virus. Performance bonds guarantee that a project will be completed by a contractor according to the contract. However, what if a contractor cannot complete a project on time due to widespread disease? What, if any, impact could the virus have on a contractor’s surety bond program?
Risk Factors
Several risks associated with the virus could trigger a performance bond claim.
1. Materials. The Chinese account for a large supply of construction materials, including steel, copper, cabinetry, etc. An inability to obtain these materials could significantly delay or stop a project all together. Even if a contractor is able to obtain them from other sources, it may be at a significantly higher cost than they put into the bid.
2. Labor. There is already a shortage of qualified labor in the construction industry. Additionally, construction already lends itself to the spreading of viruses; workers are often in close proximity, handling common materials, and they may not have an easily accessible place to wash their hands. Furthermore, even though many now have paid sick leave, there is often pressure not to use it. These things could magnify the labor shortage and make it difficult to complete projects on time.
3. Safety. Finally, the world is having a serious shortage of respirators. Because of widespread panic, many people have been purchasing N95 respirators—so much that the Surgeon General has asked people to stop buying them. It has created a shortage for people who really need them, like contractors. If contractors can’t get these safety masks, certain trades will either be unable to work, or risk continuing the project without masks, which would endanger workers and open them up to OSHA penalties.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Williams and MG Surety, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Williams may be contacted at
benw@mgsuretybonds.com
