Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute
June 14, 2021 —
Christy Jachimowski - Lewis BrisboisSection 13a-149 of the Connecticut General Statutes, commonly known as Connecticut’s highway defect statute, provides that claims arising from injuries or damages to people or property resulting from a defective road or bridge can be asserted against a party responsible for maintaining that road or bridge. Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-149. The statute also extends to sidewalks and further provides that written notice of an alleged injury must be given to a defendant municipality within ninety days of the injury.
Recently, in Dobie v. City of New Haven, 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 162 (App. Ct. May 1, 2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the trial court’s denial of a municipal defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss. The court held that even though the plaintiff attempted to assert allegations of negligence against the defendant municipality, Connecticut’s highway defect statute was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. Since the plaintiff failed to meet the requisite notice requirements, pursuant to the statute, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in denying the municipality’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Underlying Case
In February of 2013, Plaintiff William Dobie filed suit against the City of New Haven alleging injuries and damages as a result of the negligence of a City of New Haven snowplow operator. Dobie’s claims arose from an incident that occurred on January 21, 2011, in which he was driving behind the City snowplow driver, who was in the process of plowing snow from a municipal street located in New Haven, Connecticut. As the defendant employee was operating his snowplow, he knocked off a manhole cover, causing Dobie’s vehicle to drive over the open manhole. Dobie claimed personal injuries as a result of his vehicle dropping into the open manhole, including injuries to his jaw.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christy Jachimowski, Lewis BrisboisMs. Jachimowski may be contacted at
Christy.Jachimowski@lewisbrisbois.com
Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles
March 19, 2014 —
Clea Benson, Cheyenne Hopkins and Kathleen Hunter – BloombergA bipartisan U.S. Senate plan to dismantle Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac must clear many political hurdles in a short time if it is to become law, leaving narrow chances of a housing-finance overhaul being enacted this year.
Senate Banking Committee leaders said the proposal, which they plan to release later this week, would replace the two U.S.-owned mortgage financiers with government bond insurance that would kick in only after private capital suffered severe losses.
It will be left to the courts to decide how investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are treated as the two companies are wound down, Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican who co-wrote the bill, said today in an interview on Bloomberg Television. Investors including Perry Capital and Fairholme Capital Management are suing the U.S. to challenge an arrangement in which all the companies’ profits go to the Treasury.
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Ms. Hunter may be contacted at khunter9@bloomberg.net; Ms. Hopkins may be contacted at chopkins19@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clea Benson, Cheyenne Hopkins and Kathleen Hunter, Bloomberg
New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision
October 21, 2015 —
Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic WittA new
blog post from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton discusses two recent decisions limiting the holding of Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 405 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1979), a New Jersey case that has generated decades of commentary and debate, in
my own writing as well as that of many others (at least 1880 citations, according to the blog).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic WittMr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net
PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions
September 30, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams LLPThe standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a construction project. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, a claim for damages arising from an insured’s performance of faulty workmanship pursuant to a construction contract, where the only damage is to property supplied by the insured or worked on by the insured, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the standard commercial general liability insurance policy definition. But what about the circumstance when the insured has failed to perform contractual duties where the claim is for property damage to property not supplied by the insured or unrelated to the service the insured contracted to provide? The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed this question in Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Co. v. Pottstown Industrial Complex LP, No. 3489 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. 223, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 729* (Pa. Super. 2019).
Pottstown Industrial Complex arose out of an underlying dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant who had leased space to store its product inventory. The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible under the lease for keeping the roof “in serviceable condition in repair.” Notwithstanding this responsibility, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to properly maintain and repair the roof, resulting in leaks and flooding during four separate rainstorms, destroying over $700,000 in inventory. The tenant specifically alleged that the floods were caused by poor caulking of the roof, gaps and separations in the roofing membrane, undersized drain openings, and accumulated debris and clogged drains.
The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that there was no coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to the landlord. Following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered an order in favor of the insurer, holding that allegations of inadequate roof repairs were claims for faulty workmanship and were not covered under Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) and Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007).
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Konrad Krebs, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe West Virginia Supreme Court previously held that construction defects were not covered under a CGL policy. The Court, however, reversed itself in Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 2013 W.Va. LEXIS 724 (W.V. June 18, 2013).
The underlying complaint against the general contractor alleged various defects in the plaintiff’s recently constructed house, including an uneven concrete floor, water infiltration through the roof and chimney joint, a sagging support beam, and numerous cracks in the drywall walls and partitions throughout the house. Erie Insurance denied coverage. The insured general contractor sued, but the trial court found that faulty workmanship was not sufficient to give rise to an “occurrence.”
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed its prior rulings determining there was no coverage for construction defects. The court recognized its prior position was in the minority, as is Hawaii's position on coverage for construction defects. See Group Builders Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 148, 231 P.3d 67, 73 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). Now joining the majority position, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that defective workmanship causing property damage was an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. Further, the homeowner had demonstrated that she sustained "property damage" as a result of the allegedly defective construction of her home.
The trial court also determined that the business risk exclusions barred coverage. Again, the West Virginia Supreme Court disagreed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Up in Northern Ohio
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCrain’s Cleveland Business reports that both commercial and residential construction have seen spending increases in the last twelve months. The gain was only 5.4%, but it’s still welcome in the area. “It’s been quiet so long, it wouldn’t take much to generate an upturn,” according to Tom Laird, of Gilbane Building Co.
Some of the upturn comes from new building at universities and hospitals, but the corporate sector is also starting new project. Finally, the city of Cleveland is looking for proposals to develop parcels on their waterfront.
Still, some are wary. “It might just be a bubble,” said Jason Jones, the general manager of Turner Construction’s Cleveland office.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners
April 22, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWe are pleased to announce that counsel
Rachel E. Hudgins has been recognized as one of Business Insurance’s 2024 Break Out Award winners. The magazine’s Break Out Awards honor 40 top professionals each year from a competitive field of nominees who have under 15 years’ experience in the insurance and risk management sector and are “on track to be the next leaders in the risk management and property/casualty insurance field.”
Clients describe Rachel as their “chief contact for high-exposure coverage work.” She meets clients where they are with a curiosity and interest in their business strategies, as well as an ability to distill complex insurance concepts into digestible terms. Rachel also has depth of experience in coverage litigation. She has litigated hundreds of insurance coverage and bad faith claims in state and federal courts across the country and US territories.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
