Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims
August 06, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case contains valuable analysis that has impact on whether a “successor” entity will be bound by a settlement agreement it was not a direct party to. This case contains arguments for contractors that can be raised in a number of different contexts if it is sued by a successor or related entity.
The same case discusses the difference between releasing a party for “known” claims without releasing the same party for “unknown” claims. This is an important distinction because unknown claims refer to latent defects so a release that only releases a party for known claims is not releasing that party for latent defects.
In MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1432d (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), an owner hired a contractor to construct a project. At completion, the owner transferred the project to an affiliated entity (collectively, the “Owner”). The contractor sued the Owner for unpaid work, the Owner claimed construction defects with the work, and a settlement was entered into that released the contractor for KNOWN claims. Thereafter, the Owner defaulted on the construction loan and agreed to convey the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to an entity created by the lender (the “Lender Entity”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered
May 20, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Washington Supreme Court found there was coverage for resulting loss despite the original faulty contraction, an exclusion in the policy. Gardens Condominium v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 544 P.3d 499 (Wash. 2024).
Farmers issued a policy to Gardens Condominium providing coverage for loss or damage caused by a "Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Cause of Loss" was defined as any risk of direct physical loss. However, a loss was not covered if it was caused by an excluded event. The policy further provided that damage was caused by an excluded event if that event "initiates a sequence of events that results in loss or damage, regardless of the nature of any intermediate or final event in that sequence." The policy excluded coverage for faulty, inadequate, or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, or renovation. The faulty workmanship exclusion also contained a resulting loss exception: "[I]f loss or damage caused by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage."
Gardens found damage to the building that was caused by faulty design and construction of the building's roof. There was insufficient interior vents and the design of the rafters and joists prevented need ventilation Water vapor condensed on the underside of the roof sheathing, causing damage. Gardens redesigned and repaired the roof assembly to increase ventilation and eliminate condensation by installing sleepers on top of the joists.
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
Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”
In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”
In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”
In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”
In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”
Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers
July 21, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionLAS VEGAS, Nev. – JUNE 11, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that partner
Aaron Lovaas has been selected to the 2018 Mountain States Super Lawyers list, and associate
Casey Quinn has been selected to the 2018 Mountain States Rising Stars list by Super Lawyers. Each year, no more than 5 percent of lawyers are named to a Super Lawyers list and less than 2.5 percent are named to the Rising Stars list. This is the 9th consecutive year Lovaas has been honored, while Quinn has been consistently selected as a Rising Star honoree in prior years.
Aaron Lovaas is a partner in the Las Vegas office. As a transactional attorney and business litigator, Lovaas has the ability to evaluate legal issues from both points of view and help his clients understand their best option. He also brings to the table experience as a business owner, having owned and managed his own boutique law firm for 12 years.
Casey Quinn, an associate in the Las Vegas office, focuses his practice in complex commercial and construction litigation. He represents a variety of business entities in commercial disputes, including contract claims, business torts, privacy lawsuits, defamation, and fraud. Quinn is a past chair of the Construction Law section of the State Bar of Nevada and has successfully argued before the Supreme Court of Nevada, as well as settled disputes through various forms of conflict resolution including mediation and arbitration.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law
November 17, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly -Insurance Law HawaiiInterpreting Florida law, the United States District Court found there was no duty to defend a contractor against construction defect claims. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Dimmucci Dev. Corp. of Ponce Inlet, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678 (M.D. Fla. Sept 13, 2016).
The insured built condominiums and townhomes. It held three successive CGL policies issued by Evanston. The "your work" exclusion in the policies barred coverage as follows:
"Property Damage" to "your work" arising out of it or any part of it and included in the "products-completed operations hazard."
This exclusion does not apply if the damaged work or the work out of which the damage arises was performed on your behalf by a subcontractor.
The insured constructed the Towers Grande Condominium. In 2012 the Towers Grande Condominium Association, Inc. initiated the underlying action alleging that the insured's failure to construct the Towers Grande properly resulted in building defects and deficiencies. Damage to the roof, generator exhaust pipe, and HVAC system was alleged. Further, water intrusion and decking/structural issues were claimed. In addition to the construction defects, the Association also alleged that the insured's faulty work led to additional damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements
February 24, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown & Tyler B. Runge - Payne & FearsOn January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements.
As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims.
In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.).
On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report
here.
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys
Amy R. Patton,
Jeffrey K. Brown and
Tyler B. Runge
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Brown may be contacted at kb@paynefears.com
Mr. Runge may be contacted at tbr@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy
February 11, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found there was no duty to defend or indemnify under a pollution policy for claims arising from a building fire. URS Corp. v. Zurich Am Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 222 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 16, 2014).
Two firemen were killed while fighting a fire at the Deutsch Bank building in New York City. The owner of the building, URS, was sued by the estates of the two deceased firemen and other firemen who were injured by the fire.
URS was an additional insured under a contractors pollution liability policy issued by Hudson Specialty Insurance Company. The policy promised to pay for damages to the insured "if the damages result from a pollution condition." "Pollution condition" was defined as "the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, [etc.]" The policy explicitly noted that it did not provide commercial general liability coverage. Hudson denied coverage and URS sued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract
July 19, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.
Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.
When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.
The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
